Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?

Thistle

Well-known member
Part II
Um...actually...there are several. There is the baptism of John.
Paul did not write Ephesians 4:5 during the time of John's baptism. There was only Christian baptism, and there is still only Christian baptism from God's perspective, which is the only perspective that counts.
There is the baptism of Jesus.
If you mean as in John 3 & 4, Paul didn't write in that time either. Paul wrote as an apostle of the Church to the Church.
There is the "...baptism by which I will be baptized..." of which Jesus spoke in his last days.
There are instances where the word baptism is used analogically. You've hit upon one of those. Analogical uses of the word baptism are not literally baptisms they are literally analogies.
And he spoke of this third baptism to those who had already been baptized with water as He had, and who were, in fifty short days, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit as He had been at the river with John...and there was a third baptism they were to face.
Yes, I call this baptism of the Holy Spirit which for clarity it abbreviate BHS. It's Holy Spirit power overwhelming the subject such that it's visible to the observer. As you can see it's literally a Holy Spirit miracle, and it's literally, and analogical use of the word baptism. What it's not is literally a baptism of any kind.
If you can, you need to re-read your scripture without your filter.
I read it about seven times in a good year from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. I don't think I'm filtering.
Luke makes a clear distinction between the two baptisms and mentions the third...but every one of the cessationist authors I've read ignores these distinctions.
I don't know what anybody but me knows, but the bible unambiguously teaches there is only one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. It's performed in water [Acts 8:36-39]. Baptism is symbolic [Romans 6:1-7]. It's the moment God grants the gifts of grace the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit [ Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21]. And I know that a lot of people mistake analogical uses of the word baptism for literal baptisms, which is a mistake that no one who knows the definition of the word "analogy" should make.
(For the record, in seminary I read Dale Bruner, Anthony Hoekema, John MacArthur, Merrill Unger...and another whose name escapes me. Since seminary, I was taught in France by Jules-Marcel Nicole at l'Institut Biblique de Nogent...one of the greatest professors I've ever had, and an otherwise staunch cessationist...who allowed, with me as a witness in his class, that there was room to learn. He had been teaching Calvinism there as the first step to studying theology for sixty years. I've re-read MacArthur, because his egregious error keeps coming back, I published a refutation of Hanegraaff before he became Orthodox, and I've read and written extensively on Chantry. I'm not obsessed, btw.
Of course you are not, I understand complete. I write this without a hint of irony. It's easy to be misunderstood in this kind of a venue.
In seminary, I wrote a systematic theology on tongues as part of an assignment.
I'd like to read it.
Since, I have had many cessationist friends who have asked me my opinion in light of these writings.) I add my credentials not to boast...but because I want you to know that, like you, I have studied to reach the conclusions I've reached.
Not at all. It's important for me to know. It's clear to me you've thought this out.
He spoke out against an artificial sectarianism...where the sower is distinguished from the husbandman who waters. He was speaking to the vine. I don't want to belabor this, because I believe we agree here.
I love agreement.
I was in an Action Biblique church. The mandate is to them, be as one of them. That was my intent, and the effort I made in the congregation. I had not been told that the one group of evangelicals had rejected fellowship with the other.

For the record, and off to the side, the gift I've had and practiced since 1970 is used and practiced according to Paul's clear doctrine...Let me put it this way...You're having difficulty with my cryptic English. I'd never give you the French translation, hoping you'd get it better...unless you speak French. I do not speak in tongues publicly, unless told to do so...and that has only happened once, when missionaries were being ordained and commissioned to Haiti, and I was given a word to speak to them in French...I knew it was French, but the congregation mistook it for another tongue. But, unbeknownst to me, it was a word that was directly given in confirmation to prayers that the couple had been praying, and they received that word with confidence.

I have never uttered a word in a congregation that I myself did not understand. And I pray daily in tongues as I'm free to pray. I have too often to be discounted been in congregations where a word in a tongue was uttered...and the interpretation was in response to questions I had asked, and understanding I was seeking...and always this drove me back to the scriptures for more. This is actually the root of my own training.
God bless you for your sensitivity. But from this I'm assuming the systematic theology on tongues you wrote was in French?
There is room in the body for children...and sometimes children are in very old bodies...
Grin . . .
You're right about that...and Paul was also the one who had planted, and watered...we know of two visits to that neighborhood. He was their apostle. I'm not even a pastor or a teacher, I do not see my job as to correct you...but to supply the insights I've had for you to judge and respond to. I do not want to correct you here, but I enjoy the conversation.
Likewise. One of us may put a pebble in the others shoe.
And I'm not going to try to convince you...but I will say this: The seed has everything in it that the plant will become...when the seed is given its share of soil, water, warmth and light. The Word has never been apart from the Scripture...and He is only alive in us that has been planted...God bless the soil in which He dwells.
That is a beautiful analogy.
We agree. Thank you for your patience. I have such limited time to respond lately...
Thank you for giving enough context to help me understand your perspective. God bless.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
And that seems to be your wisdom here. I'm hoping that my responses may be weighed with yours...because this isn't factionalism...but two believers seeking to give air to the hope that is in them. You hold your own with equity and tact. The enemy would seek to divide...
No surer way to end a productive discourse than to fail in tact.
No...and forgive me. I've lived in the Word/Faith movement despite the extremes since 1982...I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Don't need a video from a critic. I'm critic enough.

Paul spoke to Timothy of those who looked for gain from godliness...But he also said that in godliness there is great gain. Believe God for a Cadillac...you might get the Cadillac...a friend of mine actually had one given to him. He went on to become a pastor in Maine. But Cadillac faith is not saving faith. Paul makes that clear.
To my mind this seems to affirm to me that you believe the "faith force . . . operates independent of God's will." That is a bit of a hurdle for me to get over.
No reason to, unless you think that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole in Mark 11. I do not.
I do think he was speaking hyperbolically in Mark 11: 23. I don't think Jesus expects us to pluck out our eye, cut off our hands, or hate our mothers or fathers. Jews commonly used hyperbole this way in the first century. The meaning is true, but the figure of speech is hyperbole.
Paul was saying that faith to do miracles is not saving faith.
That seems to be vindicated by John 11:49-51.
(controversy alert) I do believe that witchcraft is a process of faith as well...and they are dangerously far from any form of saving faith. The signs and wonders promised in the Revelation will not happen apart from someone's misplaced faith.
Yeah...the problem is...if you abide in His Word, you end up thinking in parables. Sigh...
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a convert from the Yanomamö tribe of Venezuela. He said before the light of Christ came to his tribe they were so oppressed by evil spirits that they would never close their eyes at night during the entire course of their lives.
Thanks again.
God bless.
 

tbeachhead

Member
Okay, sometimes I just don't understand what you mean.
If I understand what you've said I mean the same thing you mean when you say truth.
We agree.
Okay, I'm not quite sure what's at stake in this comment but go ahead.
You own your error, and you teach it at your own risk.

Truth is truth...It's can be revealed, it can be rightly taught, and it can be discovered by your own desire and quest. It cannot be changed/altered/or reinterpreted without risk.

I'm assuming we both are.
Miracles are those things that God accomplishes in his per-positive will that are not accomplished by either general providence or special providence.
That can be accomplished by God by means of special providence.
OK...

This is new verbiage. In everything I've read, I haven't encountered someone who dismisses a prophecy that is clearly from God, because it is merely "by special providence." So...for you, the supernatural gifts are not supernatural, and are not the gifts Paul spoke of because they are merely "special providence?" Do you known what "charismata" means in the Greek? The root, charis, is grace...or...providence. The very definition of charismata is "special providence." If I'm reading your view rightly hear, the Charismatic church is not for today, because the church can only enjoy the gifts of special providence...and I'm fine with redefining the church that way.

Would you believe that I actually witnessed this in Ohio, coming into the church and being taught by God as He promised? Two "revivals" side by side in subsequent weeks. The first was a Pentecostal assembly, and the second was Nazarene. I went to both, and witnessed an amazing message...ONE amazing message to two churches by two preachers led by the Spirit to bring that message. So...the Pentecostal message was prophetic...and the Nazarene message was providential? Is that right? But you'd just say the Pentecostals were in error?
Ok...Good...

If I understood you, the Supernatural words of knowledge, and prophetic utterances I shared with the police officers who interrogated me were merely "providential"? Is that right?

And tell me again why your terminology is so important, when the end is the same, and the unlearned are hearing the Word of God in their own language, at the level that they've already been taught by a Holy Spirit who has been clearly active in their lives long before I arrived in Morocco?

Nothing in your story transgresses my understanding of cessationism.
Because this form of division and sectarianism is very important to maintain? I'm not sure I understand, when God is allowed to speak.

To the Charismatic/Pentecostal...when God makes an utterance, providential or charismatic, it's still His intent, His purpose based on His promise, and the baptism of His Spirit represented clearly in His Word. What could possibly be the problem?

. . . hence my request for clarification.
Do I understand you to say you teach Jesus but not the bible? Not an accusation, it's just a question.
I don't know? Do you? I don't know how you could, given what I said....Jesus is not Jesus apart from the Word, and the Word is all the revelation of Jesus. Your own understanding of what I say is going to be prejudiced by the doctrines you've accepted as " biblical". That is often the case. When traditions nullify the Word and render it impotent, it will also darken understanding.
I have little choice but to understand the world through that which I believe to be true.
I can see that, when you're doctrine has given you over to a walk limited by sight, then the invisible becomes an impossibility to you...and the promise become fixed in the past....and cannot instruct the present.
No. I don't think that is fair either.
You might be right...if you have actually admitted that God is still very active in working miracles, signs, wonders and words...providentially...then you might actually be prepared to receive more than most cessationists who have ever caused division and broken the church into factions as John MacArthur has.

There is only one Christian baptism [Ephesians 4:5], and it's none other than Luke that tells us it's performed in water [Acts 8:36-39]. It's there in Acts 8 we see a detailed description of the temporal aspect of baptism, but the spiritual power is described in Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 7; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21.
You are confused...and you missed my point. Please don't ignore what I said. John spoke of two. Jesus made reference to a third...that was not water, and he was about to be baptized with that one...a third for him, because he was baptized in water, and with the Spirit...and finally with fire. We can start separate threads on this, because conversing with you might be useful for anyone who is curious. You are lucid, and well taught.
Right verse 39 referring to verse 41. If that's what you mean I'm in total agreement.

Wait a minute. If we are talking about the same thing it has to be for "even as many as the Lord our God may call." There can be zero exceptions from that moment until the Lord returns. Obviously, there can be no exceptions. That may be a slight overstatement, but I don't what to derail the conversation.
Yeah...Well....you do seem to be missing that pesky faith issue...How can you receive what you will not believe...what you have actually been taught to be wary of and to reject outright? It's not a haphazard thing. The baptism of Jesus Luke and John the Baptist spoke of so clearly is received, like salvation, by faith...and ignored on the same basis....what you've been taught is going to be your greatest hindrance until you grasp what Peter said, and decide to ask God for clarification. The Spirit is a far better teacher, extremely active in His church today, to clarify where MacArthur etal have been teaching falsehood.
You don't think I'm capable of reading Acts 18 and 19 and seeing what the Holy Spirit inspired? There is inspired scripture, not interpretations.
I don't know....It doesn't matter what I think. I do know and can quote the error in MacArthur etal's doctrine, because, like rabbis they quote each other on each error, seeming to believe that if enough "scholars" promote the same error, it's sacred and therefore truth. That's how traditions robbed the Catholic church as well.
He was a disciple of Jesus in as much as he believe all the light about Jesus that he had. He simply didn't have all the available light.
Correct...He knew nothing of the baptism of the Spirit. That's why Paul had to come water what he had planted...twelve disciples who had not been baptized in the spirit until they had "heard that there even was a Holy Spirit."
I don't know that to be a fact, but I can tell you certainly that John does [John 3, 4].
Different author...different context....John is still alive.
 

tbeachhead

Member
Paul did not write Ephesians 4:5 during the time of John's baptism. There was only Christian baptism, and there is still only Christian baptism from God's perspective, which is the only perspective that counts.
I don't want to prolong this, because the debate is not Paul's context here...the unity of the church, into which it is vital we be baptized. Paul, having ascertained that the disciples in Ephesus had only been baptized with John's baptism of water, because of their teacher's limited doctrine concerning the baptism of Jesus, baptized them again...by the laying on of hands, and not by the dunking into a river....to receive the promise that was made at Pentecost to "all who come to believe..." Paul operated both baptisms in Corinth as well...if you want me to cite his discussion with them, and they were likewise baptized with the same baptism of Pentecost...

If you mean as in John 3 & 4, Paul didn't write in that time either. Paul wrote as an apostle of the Church to the Church.
No...I mean as in the context of John saying, "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." The baptism of Jesus, which John himself differentiated....Water and the spirit...two clearly separate events throughout the biblical narrative.
There are instances where the word baptism is used analogically. You've hit upon one of those. Analogical uses of the word baptism are not literally baptisms they are literally analogies.
So....Not a baptism? Hmm? Look...maybe this helps: baptism means immersion. We're talking three immersions. In water....flesh goes underwater. In the Spirit...flesh is put under again...and the living waters come out, not in, from the womb/heart, in rivers according to Jesus. And by fire where faith goes under and is tried. I do not see this as analogy, but as defining immersion.
Yes, I call this baptism of the Holy Spirit which for clarity is abbreviate BHS. It's Holy Spirit power overwhelming the subject such that it's visible to the observer. As you can see it's literally a Holy Spirit miracle, and it's literally, and analogical use of the word baptism. What it's not is literally a baptism of any kind.
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" "We did not know so much that there was a Holy Spirit." "By what then were you baptized?" "By John's baptism." Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Two noteworthy points. Paul, who wrote the letter you're quoting to the Ephesians, spoke to these first disciples of two baptisms, and differentiated them. Luke recounted the methodology and the resulting miraculous manifestation.
They prophesied... Did you notice? They prophesied. They spoke inspired words of prophecy, and we do not have a single record of what they spoke. It was inspired and not written down for us today. This can be another thread, but it does highlight other errors in the cessationist presumption of "inspired".
I read it about seven times in a good year from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. I don't think I'm filtering.
We're competing then. Additionally, I read Acts and proverbs once a month. My favorite youversion reading plan is professor Horner's, but I also do their 90 day plan, about ten to fifteen chapters a day, imagine twenty chapters of Job in one sitting, to get me through an additional four times. And here's the funny part...I don't think I'm filtering either....so...let's continue to compare filters!

I don't know what anybody but me knows, but the bible unambiguously teaches there is only one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. It's performed in water [Acts 8:36-39]. Baptism is symbolic [Romans 6:1-7]. It's the moment God grants the gifts of grace the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit [ Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21]. And I know that a lot of people mistake analogical uses of the word baptism for literal baptisms, which is a mistake that no one who knows the definition of the word "analogy" should make.
You've made it "symbolic" and "analogical"....Not me. I've just seen three forms of immersion. Same word, same teachers using the word...three different manifestations.
Of course you are not, I understand complete. I write this without a hint of irony. It's easy to be misunderstood in this kind of a venue. I'd like to read it.
So would I....Of course those days were pre-word processor. The file is stashed away on a forty year hiatus from my sight. I touched my first computer...all in ascii, an apple the next year: 1984.

Not at all. It's important for me to know. It's clear to me you've thought this out.
This is kindness. Thank you.
I love agreement.
It is essential...above doctrine...as all obedience must be.
God bless you for your sensitivity. But from this I'm assuming the systematic theology on tongues you wrote was in French?
Haahahaha....No...but it is prehistory. Stone knives. Bear skins....a typewriter, and a bucket of white out.

Grin . . .
Likewise. One of us may put a pebble in the others shoe.
Is that what that was. I was wondering.
That is a beautiful analogy.
I call it a word of wisdom. It's how I understand all this.
Thank you for giving enough context to help me understand your perspective. God bless.
Thanks for you patience. I almost feel guilty, being retired, sitting down to compose my thoughts like this...too much retirement to do.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Member
No surer way to end a productive discourse than to fail in tact.
Great point. And you succeed.
To my mind this seems to affirm to me that you believe the "faith force . . . operates independent of God's will." That is a bit of a hurdle for me to get over.
I didn't put that thought in your mind. That accusation is often leveled at the Word of Faith paradigm to put a hurdle between those who want to understand and those who just want to be taught so they can go back to watching TV. What do you know that operates independent of God's will?

However...we've already said that I do not believe Paul was speaking in hyperbole in the first verses of 1 Cor 13....Mountains move by faith, and it is not saving faith. Jesus spoke of miracle workers whom he never knew. He was not speaking in hyperbole, but of the essential nature of His working. I can work anything apart from God's will, and when I work that work apart from Love...I have not worked the work of God. He makes that clear. I want to know Him...Yes....but I want Him to know me, too! This is and always has been the longing of my heart. And again, I'm only talking about moving God's providential hand....if I'm going to confine myself to your vocabulary, and i don't see a problem in that.

I do think he was speaking hyperbolically in Mark 11: 23. I don't think Jesus expects us to pluck out our eye, cut off our hands, or hate our mothers or fathers. Jews commonly used hyperbole this way in the first century. The meaning is true, but the figure of speech is hyperbole.
I'd love to see you tell Jesus that to his face....I have to tell you, with the porn on a spigot we're subjugated to today, there are a lot of pastors who are thinking that Jesus is not speaking hyperbolically.

That seems to be vindicated by John 11:49-51.
Well done. Exactly! They prophesied according to the office they held...and the faith by which they spoke was not saving faith....and let me add this as well: This passage, and Anna and Simon put to death the false doctrine of 400 hundred silent years. God is never silent to the one whose heart is perfect toward him. Anna prophesied in the temple for almost eighty years...and was never put out of the temple? And we do not have a single record of a single prophecy she spoke for eighty years? ....because, didn't she know these were silent years, and prophecy was not for today? No....there are ages where "the word of the Lord is rare." But it is rare due to a rare expectation. He will always meet us at the level of our faith...and our hope in His promise....

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a convert from the Yanomamö tribe of Venezuela. He said before the light of Christ came to his tribe they were so oppressed by evil spirits that they would never close their eyes at night during the entire course of their lives.
So...you agree, then, that casting out demons at least, is still for today?

God bless.
And you back with a double portion! Thank you for this exchange. I thrive on thinking through issues that really matter.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I don't want to prolong this, because the debate is not Paul's context here...
It won't take long, because when Paul or any writer of scripture makes any larger point the supporting points are all true as well. In particular the point that there is only one baptism it true. This has to be the case, because only an argument with true premises yield a true conclusion.
the unity of the church, into which it is vital we be baptized.
That is his larger point but his supporting point are also true. There are not two or three baptisms there is only one. We know it's a ceremony performed in water [Acts 8:36-39].
Paul, having ascertained that the disciples in Ephesus had only been baptized with John's baptism of water, because of their teacher's limited doctrine concerning the baptism of Jesus, baptized them again...by the laying on of hands, and not by the dunking into a river....
Laying on of hands is part and parcel of baptism, but it's not baptism. Baptism is a ceremony preformed in water [Acts 8:36-39].
to receive the promise that was made at Pentecost to "all who come to believe..." Paul operated both baptisms in Corinth as well...if you want me to cite his discussion with them, and they were likewise baptized with the same baptism of Pentecost...
There can be no both respecting baptism because there is only one Christian baptism.
No...I mean as in the context of John saying, "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." The baptism of Jesus, which John himself differentiated....Water and the spirit...two clearly separate events throughout the biblical narrative.
They are different events because John's baptism was not Christian baptism, and the promise of the Holy Spirit did not attach to it. That doesn't mean that they were not both baptism ceremonies performed in water. Christian baptism did not overlap John's baptism.
So....Not a baptism? Hmm? Look...maybe this helps: baptism means immersion. We're talking three immersions. In water....flesh goes underwater.
I understand this argument perfectly. It's been around for 500 years when Huldrych Zwingli dreamt it up out of thin air. He literally bragged about making this doctrine up out of whole cloth. “In this matter of baptism — if I may be pardoned for saying it — I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach.” First of all, no body ascribed power to water. Secondly, he is claiming to be the first guy since the apostles to understand baptism? That is a time span of 1,523 years!
In the Spirit...flesh is put under again...and the living waters come out, not in, from the womb/heart, in rivers according to Jesus. And by fire where faith goes under and is tried. I do not see this as analogy, but as defining immersion.
Because you are forgetting what we already know. A) there is only one baptism and B) it's a ceremony performed in water. The proof that it is analogy can be seen by the fact that it creates a picture in the minds eye.
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" "We did not know so much that there was a Holy Spirit." "By what then were you baptized?" "By John's baptism." Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Two noteworthy points. Paul, who wrote the letter you're quoting to the Ephesians, spoke to these first disciples of two baptisms, and differentiated them. Luke recounted the methodology and the resulting miraculous manifestation.
They prophesied... Did you notice? They prophesied. They spoke inspired words of prophecy, and we do not have a single record of what they spoke. It was inspired and not written down for us today. This can be another thread, but it does highlight other errors in the cessationist presumption of "inspired".
We're competing then. Additionally, I read Acts and proverbs once a month. My favorite youversion reading plan is professor Horner's, but I also do their 90 day plan, about ten to fifteen chapters a day, imagine twenty chapters of Job in one sitting, to get me through an additional four times. And here's the funny part...I don't think I'm filtering either....so...let's continue to compare filters!
Okay, we both care about getting this right.
You've made it "symbolic" and "analogical"....Not me.
No. Paul is describing the symbolic element in the baptism ceremony in Romans 6. You are buried in the water and rise up out of it. If you are physically doing something [like a ceremony] that points to something else [like Jesus rising from the grave] you have made that thing [the baptism ceremony] symbolic. This would still be true even if no one ever coined the term symbolic. We would just have to invent a word that means symbolic to discuss it. Paul made it symbolic, I just pointed out what he did.

The reverse of symbolism is analogy. If we use a real ceremony [baptism] and use it to create a picture in our minds eye. The thing this picture elucidates in our minds eye is real, but it's not a real baptism. It's a real miracle, the application of the word baptism simply helps us understand the miracle. Therefore we still only have one baptism. Recognizing what an analogy is, is not making anything analogical.
I've just seen three forms of immersion.
Only one of which can be baptism, because there is only one baptism [Ephesians 4:5].
Same word, same teachers using the word...three different manifestations.
I wrote a book on baptism, and before I went to print I remember that Jack Cottrell had written a book on the subject to. I had read his three volume Theology of God, so I had a lot of respect for him, hence I ordered his book on the subject, and having read it I threw my book in the trash. The great insight that he had was that there are only 12 passages that deal with the meaning and purpose of Christian baptism in the New Testament. Understand those 12 passages and the 500 years of controversy can be thrown in the trash too. It's a lot simpler than I had made it. My book about baptism was thick, his was thin, his was worth reading, mine was not. Although is Theology of God was about 1500 pages, that is a much bigger subject.
So would I....Of course those days were pre-word processor. The file is stashed away on a forty year hiatus from my sight. I touched my first computer...all in ascii, an apple the next year: 1984.
I have a few of those old computers sitting around too. I was using edix, wordix, spellix in those days.
This is kindness. Thank you.
It is essential...above doctrine...as all obedience must be.
Haahahaha....No...but it is prehistory. Stone knives. Bear skins....a typewriter, and a bucket of white out.

Is that what that was. I was wondering.
I call it a word of wisdom. It's how I understand all this.

Thanks for you patience. I almost feel guilty, being retired, sitting down to compose my thoughts like this...too much retirement to do.
God bless.
 

tbeachhead

Member
It won't take long, because when Paul or any writer of scripture makes any larger point the supporting points are all true as well. In particular the point that there is only one baptism it true. This has to be the case, because only an argument with true premises yield a true conclusion.

That is his larger point but his supporting point are also true. There are not two or three baptisms there is only one. We know it's a ceremony performed in water [Acts 8:36-39].

Laying on of hands is part and parcel of baptism, but it's not baptism. Baptism is a ceremony preformed in water [Acts 8:36-39].

There can be no both respecting baptism because there is only one Christian baptism.
OK...You claim that there is a single baptism, and it's a "ceremony"...Is that right? Jesus said you would receive power, Luke manifested power and you say...not power. Form only? Paul warned us about that. You know that right? Aren't you a little hesitant to embrace the baptism of power as a ceremony? That would make me uncomfortable.

And you're prepared to correct Luke's account, and Peter's testimony...I'm guessing? Because Peter clearly got it wrong. Let me show you.

Or maybe you can explain this to me: Acts 10, Peter is testifying to Cornelius, and in a decent-and-in-order way, the Holy Spirit comes down on the gathering, and Cornelius and company are filled with the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues ("...as on us at the beginning...") and prophesying. Peter stops his sermon, and proceeds to baptize them with water...which is the baptism of John.

Acts 11, Peter has to explain his doing to his colleagues the gathered Council of Jerusalem, and destroys the argument of the cessationists with a single testimony: "...And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

So...It happened as he began to speak...the Holy Spirit interrupted the sermon, and "fell on them as He fell on [the 120] at the beginning." Then Peter remembered what the Lord Himself reiterated what John had previously announced, "John indeed baptized...but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." This is Luke's clearest testimony of the baptism of the Holy Spirit...clearer even that that which happened post conversion at Samaria, because tongues and prophecy are included in the testimony as these gifts were manifested on the day of Pentecost...and then he ascribes this baptism to Jesus' baptism of which Jesus and John both spoke. What's puzzling to me is the next statement...I'm assuming you're thinking that this baptism of the Holy Spirit of which Jesus and John both spoke is the one and only baptism. Why, then, did Peter then proceed to the ceremonial baptism, as we see in Chapter 10: 47“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." That sure looks like two baptisms to me. Peter recognized the baptism not done with hands...and proceeded to the ceremony that is done with hands and H2O. And notice as well: They were baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to even publicly acknowledging their own faith!

And this is, to me, one of the biggest problem theologians have who want to control God's gift: There is no formula as to which comes first, only the clear testimony that BOTH must occur. One without the other is never accepted with a pass in Luke's testimony.

They are different events because John's baptism was not Christian baptism, and the promise of the Holy Spirit did not attach to it.
Not a "Christian" event because, even thought Jesus not only participated in it, but his disciples also carried it out with John and after John's death? When did it become "Christian?" Were they all rebaptized after the ceremony became "Christian" in your opinion...though there is no testimony to a single rebaptism? Or is the "non-Christian" event sufficient, proving my point?

You see...the promise of the Holy Spirit is only attached to "...I baptize with water, but HE..." Water. And "But HE." Both John and Jesus mentioned both. I don't think it's a good thing to deny the power, just because you have been taught to deny it. What you heard, that is clearly false, can be unheard...once you have heard what Jesus Himself said, and confirmed through His scripture.

That doesn't mean that they were not both baptism ceremonies performed in water. Christian baptism did not overlap John's baptism.
You have to define "Christian baptism." That concept is foreign to scripture. It is clear that Jesus was baptizing as many as John, though it was Jesus' disciples that did it and not Jesus. Was Jesus doing a baptism that was not Christian?

I understand this argument perfectly. It's been around for 500 years when Huldrych Zwingli dreamt it up out of thin air. He literally bragged about making this doctrine up out of whole cloth. “In this matter of baptism — if I may be pardoned for saying it — I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach.” First of all, no body ascribed power to water. Secondly, he is claiming to be the first guy since the apostles to understand baptism? That is a time span of 1,523 years!
Now I'm baffled....Zwingli and the reformers took on 500 years of encrusted papal error. "Made up out of whole cloth?" Seriously? The pope was teaching infallibly that Water saved. For hundreds of years. Are you, like MacArthur, claiming inspiration in the history of the church..."If it didn't happen for a thousand years...it's not any more." He made that doctrine up out of whole cloth in 1976, when he wrote The Charismatics. The false doctrine of cessationism is as old as some of the ECF...and it came about when the doctors had to explain that their flaccid prayers ceased producing any tangible results, so they cauterized their prayers into a liturgy and proclaimed the end of the "Age of Miracles." That's not a new doctrine...It's merely a doctrine of prescribed unbelief and failure so the "clergy" (another unbiblical term) can save face.

Because you are forgetting what we already know. A) there is only one baptism and B) it's a ceremony performed in water. The proof that it is analogy can be seen by the fact that it creates a picture in the minds eye.
Peter disagrees. You apparently disagree with Peter and the Council of Jerusalem.
Okay, we both care about getting this right.

No. Paul is describing the symbolic element in the baptism ceremony in Romans 6. You are buried in the water and rise up out of it. If you are physically doing something [like a ceremony] that points to something else [like Jesus rising from the grave] you have made that thing [the baptism ceremony] symbolic. This would still be true even if no one ever coined the term symbolic. We would just have to invent a word that means symbolic to discuss it. Paul made it symbolic, I just pointed out what he did.
We agree that Paul is talking about the water baptism in Romans. He covers the Holy Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians. Romans had not yet been visited by Paul...he longed to come and impart gifts.

The reverse of symbolism is analogy. If we use a real ceremony [baptism] and use it to create a picture in our minds eye. The thing this picture elucidates in our minds eye is real, but it's not a real baptism. It's a real miracle, the application of the word baptism simply helps us understand the miracle. Therefore we still only have one baptism. Recognizing what an analogy is, is not making anything analogical.

Only one of which can be baptism, because there is only one baptism [Ephesians 4:5].
So...miracles are for today. Real miracles...as long as they conform to your restrictions...
I wrote a book on baptism, and before I went to print I remember that Jack Cottrell had written a book on the subject to. I had read his three volume Theology of God, so I had a lot of respect for him, hence I ordered his book on the subject, and having read it I threw my book in the trash. The great insight that he had was that there are only 12 passages that deal with the meaning and purpose of Christian baptism in the New Testament. Understand those 12 passages and the 500 years of controversy can be thrown in the trash too. It's a lot simpler than I had made it. My book about baptism was thick, his was thin, his was worth reading, mine was not. Although is Theology of God was about 1500 pages, that is a much bigger subject.

I have a few of those old computers sitting around too. I was using edix, wordix, spellix in those days.

God bless.
Is there a link to that book? Look forward to your response.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
OK...You claim that there is a single baptism,
That is the meaning of the grammar and syntax of Paul in Ephesians 4:5. When we get to the correct interpretation it will agree with the grammar, syntax and context.
and it's a "ceremony"...Is that right?
When the word is used in connection to conversion, transformation, and so on, yes.
Jesus said you would receive power, Luke manifested power and you say...not power. Form only?
Quite the opposite. The gifts of grace forgiveness, and the Holy Spirit are granted in time, and that time is the moment of baptism [ Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 7; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21].
Paul warned us about that. You know that right? Aren't you a little hesitant to embrace the baptism of power as a ceremony? That would make me uncomfortable.
I'm not sure about the warning you are referring to. But Paul is very specific about the fact that we are saved "in baptism."

"having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 NASB

And you're prepared to correct Luke's account, and Peter's testimony...I'm guessing? Because Peter clearly got it wrong. Let me show you.
Okay, the holy scriptures is not wrong. And Peter inspired sermon on Pentecost is not wrong. Jesus guarantees us that the scriptures will be absolutely perfect [read John 14-18].
Or maybe you can explain this to me: Acts 10,
Gladly.
Peter is testifying to Cornelius, and in a decent-and-in-order way, the Holy Spirit comes down on the gathering, and Cornelius and company are filled with the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues ("...as on us at the beginning...") and prophesying. Peter stops his sermon, and proceeds to baptize them with water...which is the baptism of John.
I have to unwind here a little bit. There are no legitimate grounds to call the baptism ceremony "John's baptism." Jesus was baptizing at Aenon near Salim just like John was, and for the same reason, "because there was much water there" [see John 3:22 ff]. If it requires "much water" its the ceremony. But let's continue to your point . . .
Acts 11, Peter has to explain his doing to his colleagues the gathered Council of Jerusalem, and destroys the argument of the cessationists with a single testimony: "...And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

So...It happened as he began to speak...the Holy Spirit interrupted the sermon, and "fell on them as He fell on [the 120] at the beginning." Then Peter remembered what the Lord Himself reiterated what John had previously announced, "John indeed baptized...but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." This is Luke's clearest testimony of the baptism of the Holy Spirit...clearer even that that which happened post conversion at Samaria, because tongues and prophecy are included in the testimony as these gifts were manifested on the day of Pentecost...and then he ascribes this baptism to Jesus' baptism of which Jesus and John both spoke. What's puzzling to me is the next statement...I'm assuming you're thinking that this baptism of the Holy Spirit of which Jesus and John both spoke is the one and only baptism. Why, then, did Peter then proceed to the ceremonial baptism, as we see in Chapter 10: 47“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." That sure looks like two baptisms to me. Peter recognized the baptism not done with hands...and proceeded to the ceremony that is done with hands and H2O. And notice as well: They were baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to even publicly acknowledging their own faith!
I hope you agree that I'm saying there is only one literal Christian baptism? I hope the answer to that is yes, because I've tried to make that clear. Do you remember that I also said that analogical baptisms are real miracles, but not real baptism? I hope the answer to that is yes too, because I tried to make that clear as well. I also said that Baptism of the Holy Spirit which I designate for clarity as BHS is an analogical baptism, not literal baptism. In the temporal work BHS is a miracle not a baptism. It's only a baptism in the minds eye. That is the very definition of analogical. So what is being compared here in Acts 11? Peter is saying that events of 10:44-46 are like the events of 2:1-4. That makes perfect sense. He is comparing one analogical baptism to another. The power there in BHS is sign miracle power not redemptive or transformative power. No one was saved in Acts 2:1-4 or 10:44-46. People were saved in literal baptism 2:41 and 10:48.

BHS only occurs in three places in scripture and history. the first is Jesus baptism where the Spirit descended like a dove. Each of these mark out the week of years describe in Daniel 9:27. Jesus baptism 3 1/2 years later Pentecost 3 1/2 years later the house of Cornelius. BHS is not to be confused with the Apostles distributing miraculous gifts as we see in Acts 8, 19, 1 Timothy 4:14, etc.
And this is, to me, one of the biggest problem theologians have who want to control God's gift: There is no formula as to which comes first, only the clear testimony that BOTH must occur. One without the other is never accepted with a pass in Luke's testimony.
I couldn't be more delighted with Luke's testimony. It's perfectly consistent with all the rest of scripture on these matters.
Not a "Christian" event because, even thought Jesus not only participated in it, but his disciples also carried it out with John and after John's death?
There in lies the problem of your insistence in calling the baptism ceremony itself "John's baptism" which I addressed above. It is not. It's just a baptism ceremony.
When did it become "Christian?"
On Pentecost.
Were they all rebaptized after the ceremony became "Christian" in your opinion...
Yes, if you call being baptized for different purposes re-baptism, which you shouldn't and I don't.
though there is no testimony to a single rebaptism?
You don't seem to understand that the Jews baptized people many times for many reasons. That is why Jews had mikvahs [baptisteries]. Every place you find Jews you find mikvahs. So being baptized into discipleship of John and his message of repentance, "for the remission of sins" has nothing to do with becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ. For that you need to be baptized one time, not re-baptized. The two are not logically connected in any way.
Or is the "non-Christian" event sufficient, proving my point?
You are saying the apostles were not baptized on Pentecost? I disagree.
You see...the promise of the Holy Spirit is only attached to "...I baptize with water, but HE..." Water. And "But HE." Both John and Jesus mentioned both. I don't think it's a good thing to deny the power, just because you have been taught to deny it. What you heard, that is clearly false, can be unheard...once you have heard what Jesus Himself said, and confirmed through His scripture.
What power do you alleged I deny? A scripture reference will be fine.
You have to define "Christian baptism."
It's that ceremony where you go down into the water as a repentant sinner and come up as a child of God, regenerated and redeemed [Acts 8:36-39].
That concept is foreign to scripture.
Acts 8:36-39 is scripture.
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Well-known member
It is clear that Jesus was baptizing as many as John, though it was Jesus' disciples that did it and not Jesus. Was Jesus doing a baptism that was not Christian?
Being a disciple of Jesus was one thing before Pentecost, and another after. We apply the word Christian after, but the functional difference was from Acts 2:42 on, the Holy Spirit changed his mailing address to your heart upon baptism. That never happened to anyone before Acts 2:42.
Now I'm baffled....Zwingli and the reformers took on 500 years of encrusted papal error. "Made up out of whole cloth?" Seriously?
I'm talking about the teaching that there is more than one baptism contra Ephesians 4:5.
The pope was teaching infallibly that Water saved. For hundreds of years. Are you, like MacArthur, claiming inspiration in the history of the church..."If it didn't happen for a thousand years...it's not any more." He made that doctrine up out of whole cloth in 1976, when he wrote The Charismatics.
No. I'm a cessationist because of my reading of 1 Corinthians 13:10.
The false doctrine of cessationism is as old as some of the ECF...and it came about when the doctors had to explain that their flaccid prayers ceased producing any tangible results, so they cauterized their prayers into a liturgy and proclaimed the end of the "Age of Miracles." That's not a new doctrine...It's merely a doctrine of prescribed unbelief and failure so the "clergy" (another unbiblical term) can save face.
We both have our bill of particulars with the Catholic Church.
Peter disagrees. You apparently disagree with Peter and the Council of Jerusalem.
I would address that if I understood it. Are you saying that baptism is a meritorious work of man striving toward God? Colossians 2:12 corrects that idea. It's "the working of God." So no Peter does not disagree with me.
We agree that Paul is talking about the water baptism in Romans. He covers the Holy Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians. Romans had not yet been visited by Paul...he longed to come and impart gifts.
Right, but that is not BHS. That is simply imparting gifts.
So...miracles are for today. Real miracles...as long as they conform to your restrictions...
Is there a link to that book? Look forward to your response.
Sure, and what a bargain [link].
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So...miracles are for today. Real miracles...as long as they conform to your restrictions...
I missed this bit, sorry. I have a high bar for sign miracles. And to be clear by sign miracles I mean supernatural events that are so obviously supernatural that they rule out alternative explanations. For example, Jesus made lepers whole. Leprosy causes your fingers and toes to fall off. If in the morning you have no fingers or toes and by the evening you do there are no alternative explanations for that. If you took a bible time line and pushed a map pin in every place in that time line where a sign miracle occurred, you would be struck with how infrequently they happened even in the bible. I would expect them to be no less rare today.

Providential answers to prayer are supernatural, because they would not happen without God answering our prayer. If I had a notebook of all the prayers God has answer in my view, I don't think I could lift it. There are a lot of examples of this in the gospels [Matthew 8:13; John 4:50,51; Luke 8:50; etc.].
 

tbeachhead

Member
Appreciate your patience. I don't like to sit down to the forums when I only have the time for terse, glib responses to thought provoking posts. I'm going to go backwards with your latest responses...starting with this one. It's fascinating.

I missed this bit, sorry. I have a high bar for sign miracles. And to be clear by sign miracles I mean supernatural events that are so obviously supernatural that they rule out alternative explanations. For example, Jesus made lepers whole. Leprosy causes your fingers and toes to fall off. If in the morning you have no fingers or toes and by the evening you do there are no alternative explanations for that. If you took a bible time line and pushed a map pin in every place in that time line where a sign miracle occurred, you would be struck with how infrequently they happened even in the bible. I would expect them to be no less rare today.
You do realize that the concept of "sign" miracles is fabricated from raw synthetic materials...It's not biblical. You cannot take a verse out of context in, say...1 Corinthians... and claim that this single verse nullifies every promise pertaining to the anointing and authority that comes with the residency of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer. I'm assuming that you do understand this. You already know that in the NT, the scriptures refer to semeia, signs, teras, wonders/prodigies0 and dunamis, miraculous works of power? So...Jesus instructed the believers to recognize other believers by the signs (semeia) that follow them in Mark 16...and he belied your theories in front of the Pharisees, because despite the semeia signs and teras wonders...they did not believe. In other words, signs and wonders proved nothing at all. They had another purpose altogether than for Jesus to "show off" what a powerful, cool dude he was and we are not. In fact, he's the one who warned us all that signs and wonders are not a Christian exclusive...the deceivers in the last days will be doing them as well...(and I'm absolutely certain that you are not claiming that Christians will only be recognized because they're so impotent, there are no signs following them, contrary to what Jesus Himself told us.)

Providential answers to prayer are supernatural, because they would not happen without God answering our prayer. If I had a notebook of all the prayers God has answer in my view, I don't think I could lift it. There are a lot of examples of this in the gospels [Matthew 8:13; John 4:50,51; Luke 8:50; etc.].
So...healing leprosy, for you, would be catalogued under "teras", and healing blind Bar Timaeus, or the woman with the issue of blood would be "providential answer to prayer..." because you could have come up with an explanation? What about casting the demons out of the guy in the decapolis? Or out of the kid with apparent epilepsy....how do you classify that? Do you cast out demons today by "providential answer to prayer?" Or do you deliberately excuse demons from your understanding of treatment and therapy? Are "demons not for today?" And do they know they are not for today? Did they agree to stop tormenting people when the last letter of the Book was penned? Did they sign the agreement?

I don't mean to sound disrespectful...but I'm always intrigued by the concept of the cessation...when to you suppose the last legitimate manifestation of tongues occurred with appropriate interpretation according to Paul's doctrine? Did the elders call an end to the gift? Or did the gift just cease universally across the known world the moment the last iota dried on the parchment? Or were the gifted allowed to die with their gifts intact? I'd love to know what you think, since your doctrine imposes a moment on history that is extra biblical...and therefore purely hypothetical.
 

tbeachhead

Member
Being a disciple of Jesus was one thing before Pentecost, and another after. We apply the word Christian after, but the functional difference was from Acts 2:42 on, the Holy Spirit changed his mailing address to your heart upon baptism. That never happened to anyone before Acts 2:42.
True...Before, the disciples were given the power to cast out demons and to tread on all of the power of the enemy by Jesus in person. After, the Holy Spirit delegated that power to us according to His will. Jesus said it was to our advantage that he not be with us, but that He be gone...because the Holy Spirit Whom He sent, resident in us gives us everything that pertains to life and godliness, making available every great and precious promise whereby we ourselves become partakers of the divine nature, as Peter so clearly said., Jesus said, "The glory you have given Me, I have given them..." He never took that back. We are His body...and imbued with His Spirit, partakers even of His mind...as our own faith will allow...or, in the case of the cessationist...our unbelief will not allow.

I'm talking about the teaching that there is more than one baptism contra Ephesians 4:5.
I don't understand why you don't get this...Paul is the one who recognized both in Ephesus. I'm not going to revisit this...but, understand...there is One Baptism as there i One God...Who has come to use in three persons...and Who has made us in His image and likeness to have body and soul and spirit...The Waters of the Spirit are not the waters of the Jordan...and yet we participate in both...as one baptism.

How many circumcisions are there? Where does the Bible first speak of the circumcision of the heart? Do you know? And yet many Jews, strikingly similar to you, only recognize the circumcision of the flesh.

No. I'm a cessationist because of my reading of 1 Corinthians 13:10.
I get that. I've always been baffled by the simplicity...a single verse of scripture wrenched ruthlessly from context (do YOU know even as you are known? Or do you still see as through a glass? Darkly? The perfect clearly is not come...only the beginning and the seed.) is used to nullify the entire promise of the Father foretold in Joel, and by John...who spoke of the SECOND baptism that Jesus would be doing, NOT of water, and by Jesus...and recognized by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Tongues will cease the moment we no longer need words to communicate....I will continue to type in tongues, as I am right now, knowing that you will not receive this otherwise...and that's how the gifts work.

Let me tell you why I'm not a cessationist on the same basis: Mark admits his gospel is only "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." First verse merely sets the church in motion from the root...It's the seed, not the harvest. Luke follows the same theme, not by accident, when he tells our friend Theophilus that he only related in his gospel what Jesus began to do and to teach. Acts show the continuation of the gospel...not the end! The writers did not anticipate a cessation of grace...they wrote of the authority and responsibility that comes with that grace.

We both have our bill of particulars with the Catholic Church.
No matter...the truth of my statement remains: Cessationism is the invention of the pastor whose prayers are not to be answered, because "whatsoever you ask the Father in my name" has a list of particulars that are no longer included in "whatsoever." That's an RC dogma.

I would address that if I understood it.
Here's Peter's report of two baptisms: Acts 11: 16Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” It is a kindness that you admit that you do not understand...but remember this, that Peter's next act, according to Chapter 10's testimony, was to baptize the entire family in water, because Jesus had already baptized them in the Spirit. Not to baptize in water after the baptism of Jesus of which Jesus so specifically spoke, would be withstanding God.
Are you saying that baptism is a meritorious work of man striving toward God? Colossians 2:12 corrects that idea. It's "the working of God." So no Peter does not disagree with me.
Obviously not...but it's interesting that you point to Colossians where Paul talks about shadows...and circumcisions in the context of baptisms...
Right, but that is not BHS. That is simply imparting gifts.
What was it in Ephesus? When Paul got there, they'd already been dunked...Paul didn't "impart gifts..." as he did to Timothy by prophecy and the laying on of hands...He just saw to it that disciples/believers receive the Holy Spirit of whom they had not even heard. And the Spirit, now resident in them, imparted gifts exactly as He had in every other instance throughout Acts...as He had done on the day of Pentecost. Luke is entirely consistent, and your traditions are entirely inconsistent with the testimony of scripture.

Sure, and what a bargain [link].
Thanks...Did Cotrell really say, “In fact, it would appear that God is instituting baptism as a new condition for salvation in the New Testament” (Kindle Location 187). Later he added: “the New Covenant necessity for a specifically Trinitarian faith is the rationale for adding baptism as a new condition for salvation, since by design it relates us to the Trinity both in symbol and in fact” Do you believe it's a condition?

Did you notice that even Cotrell relates the baptism to a "trinitarian" relation...making room for type/shadow/and real? It's much more than a river of water flowing into a dead sea. Just saying.
 

tbeachhead

Member
Part One
That is the meaning of the grammar and syntax of Paul in Ephesians 4:5. When we get to the correct interpretation it will agree with the grammar, syntax and context.
Yeah, well...the same grammar and syntax claims that there is One God...Father Son and Spirit. Using the same grammar, John spoke of two, saying, "today I....but He...", John's baptism unto repentance, and Jesus' unto newness of life.

When the word is used in connection to conversion, transformation, and so on, yes.
I'm missing the nuance. When is "conversion, transformation and so on" connected to a ceremony? That seems bizarre to me...I connect each to a promise that is internalized...not with a ceremonial sprinkling or dunking. Do not misread this as a rejection of ceremony...I've been baptized twice myself...sprinkled congregational in Concord, NH as an infant and dunked as a young adult by a Pentecostal Jamaican in a pond in Lorraine, Ohio.

Quite the opposite. The gifts of grace forgiveness, and the Holy Spirit are granted in time, and that time is the moment of baptism [ Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 7; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21].
I will never take the time to look up references. I have never memorized the Bible by chapter and verse...it's all resident, written like a single script in me. If you string a lot of references like that with me, you're wasting your time. In my experience, when folks were doing that here on CARM, too often it went down rabbit holes of non sequiturs. I was talking about power, just like Jesus was, ie miracles, dunamis, or wonders, teras in terms of the signs semeia Jesus spoke of.

It all goes back to something Jesus said to the Pharisees: "Which is easier to say? 'Your sins are forgiven?' Or, 'Rise! Take up your bed and walk.'" Obviously the former is easier to say...because, if one speaks the latter, his reputation will either rise or be destroyed by the invalid's next move. There is no cost at all to the speaker to tell someone their sins are forgiven. Jesus took that cost on Himself so our response has neither power nor heroics...just an artificial appearance of godliness that denies the power thereof.

I'm not sure about the warning you are referring to. But Paul is very specific about the fact that we are saved "in baptism."
2 Tim 3:2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these! These are clearly dangerous times...and there are many that teach faith in a godliness of form only, without power...claiming falsely that that power is "not for today."
"having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 NASB
Thank you...that's better. Kind of a weird twist, though, trying to make Paul say we are "saved" in baptism...Paul's pretty specific about what the baptisms do to us, and yes...I'd argue here, both baptisms....because the baptism of John is immersion in water, unto repentance, and then raised to newness of life...and the baptism of Jesus is an immersion in the waters of life that flow from the innermost being. Either way, Colossians illustrates both the act of obedience, and the receiving of faith.

Okay, the holy scriptures is not wrong. And Peter inspired sermon on Pentecost is not wrong. Jesus guarantees us that the scriptures will be absolutely perfect [read John 14-18].
Um....huh? John 14-18? ...says the scriptures will be "absolutely perfect?" Where does He talk about the scriptures? I was referring you to what Peter said about baptism....that bit that you are not understanding...in Acts 10 and 11. Peter's understanding of the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus is clearest here.

Gladly. I have to unwind here a little bit. There are no legitimate grounds to call the baptism ceremony "John's baptism." Jesus was baptizing at Aenon near Salim just like John was, and for the same reason, "because there was much water there" [see John 3:22 ff]. If it requires "much water" its the ceremony. But let's continue to your point . . .
...the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John are Luke's terms...totally biblical. Acts 19 the disciples had been baptized by Apollos into John's baptism...according to the traditions of the church...as Peter himself bore witness in Acts 10, baptizing the new disciples of Cornelius' house with John's baptism...after Jesus had baptized them with the Holy Spirit (as they had been on the day of Pentecost...with tongues)...and as Peter related this to the Council of Jerusalem in chapter 11...as I showed you.

I hope you agree that I'm saying there is only one literal Christian baptism?
You have coined the term "literal" to protect your dogma. I agree that there is one body, as I agree that there is One Lord and One Faith...and you agree that that One Lord is Father Son and Spirit, all three of which are literal and real...so we do not have any problems...

I hope the answer to that is yes, because I've tried to make that clear. Do you remember that I also said that analogical baptisms are real miracles, but not real baptism?
Again, you have coined the term "analogical" to protect your dogma. It works for you, and fuels the argument.

Let's put it this way...you're talking about two baptisms: the "real" ceremonial water washing, and the "real" analogical baptism of the Holy Spirit, both of which are real...and only one of which, the Baptism of Jesus, was the sine qua non of Luke's testimony in Acts. Never once did anyone say, "Did you get dunked when you first believed....?" But twice there's a show stopping moment when the apostles discover that the disciples had, in fact, not received the Holy Spirit...as Luke said, "He had not yet fallen upon any of them..." (belying your contention that He comes with the water...He did not in Samaria.)
I hope the answer to that is yes too, because I tried to make that clear as well. I also said that Baptism of the Holy Spirit which I designate for clarity as BHS is an analogical baptism, not literal baptism. In the temporal work BHS is a miracle not a baptism. It's only a baptism in the minds eye. That is the very definition of analogical.
It's also very weird...Pentecost was "in the mind's eye?" Not literal? An analogy? Jesus; "John baptized with water, but you....." was an analogy? Less than? Not literal? Not real?

Is that what you're saying?

So what is being compared here in Acts 11? Peter is saying that events of 10:44-46 are like the events of 2:1-4. That makes perfect sense. He is comparing one analogical baptism to another. The power there in BHS is sign miracle power not redemptive or transformative power. No one was saved in Acts 2:1-4 or 10:44-46. People were saved in literal baptism 2:41 and 10:48.
You are with Cotrell? Salvation comes by baptism in water? What is wet, and external suddenly becomes real and internal? Kind of like a wafer becomes actual flesh when the jingle bells tinkle?

BHS only occurs in three places in scripture and history.
Sorry to keep interrupting. That's quite a statement...is that something you made up by faith? Because your claim is entirely extrabiblical. (Besides the fact that your "three" places is erroneous:

End part One
 

tbeachhead

Member
Part two
the first is Jesus baptism where the Spirit descended like a dove. Each of these mark out the week of years describe in Daniel 9:27. Jesus baptism 3 1/2 years later Pentecost 3 1/2 years later the house of Cornelius. BHS is not to be confused with the Apostles distributing miraculous gifts as we see in Acts 8, 19, 1 Timothy 4:14, etc.
You're now claiming to be able to count the days? I've never even seen this claim before...
Jesus baptism is one. Pentecost is the second. Samaria is the third. Saul/Paul is the fourth...Ananias is sent to him for that purpose. Corinth is demonstrably the fifth. Apollos is the sixth. Ephesus is the seventh. Paul's letter to the Galatians speaks of the eighth. In fact every single letter of Paul is written to Charismatic churches with the exception of the church in Colosse...because he had not yet been there. Timothy ran with Paul, and was part of the church in Lystra, where Paul had gotten stoned...he was certainly baptized in the Spirit. Not ever having been baptized but with John's baptism, you've missed a few clear instances. He didn't go to Ephesus to "distribute gifts." That's what the Spirit does, as Paul clearly states to the Galatians, "Does God lavish His Spirit on you and work miracles among you because you practice the law, or because you hear and believe (Greek: because of the hearing of faith...)?" Jesus does the lavishing, according to the promise of the Father, and the miracles happen by the hearing of faith...they have not yet been taught by Rome to believe otherwise...and there were no apostles assigned to the Galatians.

I couldn't be more delighted with Luke's testimony. It's perfectly consistent with all the rest of scripture on these matters.
Well...at least we agree on this point...and your delight in the word gives me hope that the dogma that came from outside will be dissolved by the light of that testimony. Strange how you completely missed my point...that BOTH baptisms occur consistently in Luke's testimony.

Therein lies the problem of your insistence in calling the baptism ceremony itself "John's baptism" which I addressed above. It is not. It's just a baptism ceremony.
You're using your own language. I'm using Luke's...I tend to do that...because Luke got it from Peter's testimony, who got it from both Jesus and John.

On Pentecost.
Really? What Jesus did was not Christian, then? Why then? They weren't even called Christians until the Greeks in Antioch started calling them that...How do you get to pinpoint the time where it went from analogical to "real"? Dogma is very stalwart in its claims...but not too consistent.

Yes, if you call being baptized for different purposes re-baptism, which you shouldn't and I don't.
English..."re-" is the prefix that means "again"...like "ana" in Greek...The anabaptists, the rebaptists, were despised by the Roman church because they denounced the sprinkling in paedobaptism as impotent church tradition, and insisted that everyone get baptized again as adults fully conscious of their own choices.

And you do know that you are woefully without a single testimony whereby a single one of the 120 who were baptized in the Holy Spirit went on and got dunked for a second time...Not once does Luke refer to an anabaptism. Right?
You don't seem to understand that the Jews baptized people many times for many reasons. That is why Jews had mikvahs [baptisteries]. Every place you find Jews you find mikvahs. So being baptized into discipleship of John and his message of repentance, "for the remission of sins" has nothing to do with becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ. For that you need to be baptized one time, not re-baptized. The two are not logically connected in any way.
Well...you're wrong there, actually. Badly mistaken.. John wasn't sent by the Essenes. He was sent by God to baptize...unto repentance and remission of sins. This was all about Jesus, and not washing hands or cups and saucers.
You are saying the apostles were not baptized on Pentecost? I disagree.
I'm saying they were literally baptized in the Spirit according to the Promise of the Father, procured by Jesus as He had promised, and as John had foretold so clearly at the Jordan. I'm saying you are woefully bereft of a single scripture that the apostles baptized each other before they started baptizing the three thousand that day, and the thousands yet to come.

What power do you alleged I deny? A scripture reference will be fine.
"These signs will follow them that believe. In my name, they will...." Go on from there. Everything Jesus Himself promised believers. The tongues of Pentecost that Peter said was unto..." all who come to believe..." The miracles that the Spirit worked among the Galatians by the hearing of faith...Anything that you cannot label "providential" according to your new dogma and traditions.

It's that ceremony where you go down into the water as a repentant sinner and come up as a child of God, regenerated and redeemed [Acts 8:36-39].
There was a ceremony there? Really?

Acts 8:36-39 is scripture.
Yep..."38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing." How Phillip getting snatched away and moved on in the Spirit tells you anything is beyond me...unless you're saying we can all be expected to get caught away after baptizing someone...and moved sixty miles. I would have thought that that would not be for today...

That's why posting chapter and verse should not satisfy you...there are so many non sequiturs in your choice as to be beyond logic: Phillip just came from being transported by the Spirit from Samaria, ninety miles away, to a road south of Jerusalem...where a miraculous encounter is taking place. And you want to buttress an argument based on "ceremony"?
End part two
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Well-known member
Appreciate your patience. I don't like to sit down to the forums when I only have the time for terse, glib responses to thought provoking posts. I'm going to go backwards with your latest responses...starting with this one. It's fascinating.


You do realize that the concept of "sign" miracles is fabricated from raw synthetic materials...It's not biblical.
I have thought about my responses above, since I put them down. I didn't really say with precision what I intended. General providence is how the universe is design to operate by God's decree. This is why, when we swing our feet over the end of the bed in the morning our feet hit the floor and never the ceiling. Most people call these the laws of nature, etc. If I had occasion to pray for you today, God knew I would pray that prayer before time began, and has had all of time to use the tools of his general providence to bring about an answer to my prayer. The fact that God did it in response to my prayer moves this act of God from the realm of general providence to the realm of special providence. From a purely theological perspective we call this special providence, colloquially I call it a miracle. But the miracles that are absolute exceptions to general providence are different. However when God, knowing his own general rules for the universe, makes a clear and obvious exception, this kind of act of God is a miracle in the purest sense of the word. The reason the word "sign" is associated with this kind of thing, is that God is making a point by "breaking," if you will, his own rules for the universe.
You cannot take a verse out of context in, say...1 Corinthians... and claim that this single verse nullifies every promise pertaining to the anointing and authority that comes with the residency of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer.
If I felt like that was what I was doing, I'd have to agree.
I'm assuming that you do understand this.
You'd be right.
You already know that in the NT, the scriptures refer to semeia, signs, teras, wonders/prodigies0 and dunamis, miraculous works of power? So...Jesus instructed the believers to recognize other believers by the signs (semeia) that follow them in Mark 16...and he belied your theories in front of the Pharisees, because despite the semeia signs and teras wonders...they did not believe. In other words, signs and wonders proved nothing at all. They had another purpose altogether than for Jesus to "show off" what a powerful, cool dude he was and we are not. In fact, he's the one who warned us all that signs and wonders are not a Christian exclusive...the deceivers in the last days will be doing them as well...(and I'm absolutely certain that you are not claiming that Christians will only be recognized because they're so impotent, there are no signs following them, contrary to what Jesus Himself told us.)
I have to say you've kind of boxed me in by your framing of the question. I don't see this difficulty here, on the ground that the promised was kept to whom it was given, in the time frame for which it was given, and to whatever eschatological application it may have, I remain open minded.
So...healing leprosy, for you, would be catalogued under "teras", and healing blind Bar Timaeus, or the woman with the issue of blood would be "providential answer to prayer..." because you could have come up with an explanation?
That is the defect in my prior answer. It left the impression that I could just sort through facts and move things from one category to another. So in clarification and correction the basic question is "How does God rule the universe?" The answer is three ways. 1) General Providence - laws of nature which operate according to God's permissive will. 2) Special Providence - by means of nature according to God's per-positive will. 3) by Sign Miracle - in contravention of nature according to God's per-positive will to proclaim his glory to mankind.

So the question doesn't turn on my interpretation of the facts in real time. It turns on whether or not God made an exception to his own rules of General Providence. It's not a subjective question, it's an objective question. There still may be subjective judgment involved, but the question itself is objective.
What about casting the demons out of the guy in the decapolis? Or out of the kid with apparent epilepsy....how do you classify that? Do you cast out demons today by "providential answer to prayer?" Or do you deliberately excuse demons from your understanding of treatment and therapy? Are "demons not for today?" And do they know they are not for today? Did they agree to stop tormenting people when the last letter of the Book was penned? Did they sign the agreement?
I'm happy to offer my current judgment on the matter. I believe we live in the millennial reign of Christ. And everywhere the gospel has gone we should not expect to see demonic activity. Remember that Jesus message was the kingdom of God is being ushered in. Starting with Pentecost the kingdom of God has arrived. From that point on the kingdom has spread with the gospel as the dominion of Satan has retreated into the darkest corners of the earth. So I expect there may be some demonic activity there. But I've never been any place where the world was not seasoned with the Gospel salt of God's people.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful...
I'm sure it will be just the right amount.
but I'm always intrigued by the concept of the cessation...when to you suppose the last legitimate manifestation of tongues occurred with appropriate interpretation according to Paul's doctrine? Did the elders call an end to the gift? Or did the gift just cease universally across the known world the moment the last iota dried on the parchment? Or were the gifted allowed to die with their gifts intact? I'd love to know what you think, since your doctrine imposes a moment on history that is extra biblical...and therefore purely hypothetical.
Well, if I thought it was extra biblical I would think as little of it as you do. But times changing in the lifetime of living people is the kind of thing we see happen all the time.
 

tbeachhead

Member
I have thought about my responses above, since I put them down. I didn't really say with precision what I intended. General providence is how the universe is design to operate by God's decree. This is why, when we swing our feet over the end of the bed in the morning our feet hit the floor and never the ceiling. Most people call these the laws of nature, etc. If I had occasion to pray for you today, God knew I would pray that prayer before time began, and has had all of time to use the tools of his general providence to bring about an answer to my prayer. The fact that God did it in response to my prayer moves this act of God from the realm of general providence to the realm of special providence. From a purely theological perspective we call this special providence, colloquially I call it a miracle. But the miracles that are absolute exceptions to general providence are different. However when God, knowing his own general rules for the universe, makes a clear and obvious exception, this kind of act of God is a miracle in the purest sense of the word. The reason the word "sign" is associated with this kind of thing, is that God is making a point by "breaking," if you will, his own rules for the universe.
What is not exceptional that is done by God? When I encountered a student's mother two years ago at the Christmas concert, I found that she had terminal brain cancer. They had given her months. I prayed for her there in the hallway outside the auditorium. Six months later, last year, she called me one day on my cell phone, and told me that she'd had as much of the tumor removed as possible. Anymore would kill her outright. She asked me to stop by and pray...often...and I did. Then she disappeared for a few months. Her son told me she had a bucket list, so she and her husband roamed the West in an RV. I hadn't seen or heard from her for months...but she went for her c-scan and MRI when she got back and they found no trace of scar tissue...let alone cancer. She has been pronounced cancer free. All I did was lay my hands on the sick according to the Word of the Lord...and the recovery was likewise according to the Word of the Lord...But because this was today, and not Jesus or Paul, this was....what? Providential? I think you're too complicated.
My doctrine is clear. Jesus did not do miracles to "prove" anything. He did miracles because compassion required miracles, and compassion is still for today. His miracles proved nothing to anyone in authority, but to those in need, they proved compassion and love purchased at the price of a life laid down. Everything He did, and the authority He wielded was as the Son of Adam...such as we are...carrying out the Edenic mandate, such as we have been called to uphold.

If I felt like that was what I was doing, I'd have to agree.
That's fair.

You'd be right.

I have to say you've kind of boxed me in by your framing of the question. I don't see this difficulty here, on the ground that the promised was kept to whom it was given, in the time frame for which it was given, and to whatever eschatological application it may have, I remain open minded.
...that's just it: The promise was given to "...all who are afar off. To all whom the Lord our God will call.." I assume that includes you...unless you think that the call is not for today. Jesus passed His glory unto all who come to believe the apostles...I assume you accept that Glory is still for today? There is nothing that says He withdrew His compassion. There is nothing that suggests we are no longer in need...What you say up ahead is rather sobering actually:

That is the defect in my prior answer. It left the impression that I could just sort through facts and move things from one category to another. So in clarification and correction the basic question is "How does God rule the universe?" The answer is three ways. 1) General Providence - laws of nature which operate according to God's permissive will. 2) Special Providence - by means of nature according to God's per-positive will. 3) by Sign Miracle - in contravention of nature according to God's per-positive will to proclaim his glory to mankind.
Tumors disappear...Contravention of "nature". To me...the tumor/the virus is a contravention of nature and we enforce the general providence of the original design by rejecting the rogue nature of cancer cells and viruses.

So the question doesn't turn on my interpretation of the facts in real time. It turns on whether or not God made an exception to his own rules of General Providence. It's not a subjective question, it's an objective question. There still may be subjective judgment involved, but the question itself is objective.
When you are clueless...which we all are, you either "follow the science" which means take someone else's guesses as better than yours, or accept whatever...which is merely fatalism with a dash of religion. "Dear God heal my sister...or else let her die in peace with no pain...or a little pain...or whatever." I actually heard a pastor pray like that. Not a highlight of my walk. The woman died of cancer, her husband married the next week, the kids were strungout on drugs...and people were all still talking about the "will of God"...as if He had anything to do with any of that.

I'm happy to offer my current judgment on the matter. I believe we live in the millennial reign of Christ. And everywhere the gospel has gone we should not expect to see demonic activity. Remember that Jesus message was the kingdom of God is being ushered in. Starting with Pentecost the kingdom of God has arrived. From that point on the kingdom has spread with the gospel as the dominion of Satan has retreated into the darkest corners of the earth. So I expect there may be some demonic activity there. But I've never been any place where the world was not seasoned with the Gospel salt of God's people.
I'm very serious about this: do not go to Haiti. Just don't. Revelations 18 should be enough to quench that, but guess what the devil would like you to believe. Deny his existence, and his ability to disrupt even a Christian church. The sorcerers are even now casting their spells to destroy ministries everywhere...just as we pray that their designs be thwarted...It's called warfare. When satan is roaming looking for whom he may devour...his most powerful weapon is the unbelief of the "believer" who has been trained that he is without resource in this age.

You've fallen for a lie, sister. Do not go to Haiti, a nation that gave itself over to voodoo decades ago.
I'm sure it will be just the right amount.
;) I try to be nice...Seriously. I try. With varying degrees of success.

Well, if I thought it was extra biblical I would think as little of it as you do. But times changing in the lifetime of living people is the kind of thing we see happen all the time.
You did not answer my question. You're tacitly saying God withdrew both grace and compassion. I'd love to know when.
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Well-known member
Part One Yeah, well...the same grammar and syntax claims that there is One God...Father Son and Spirit.
Okay, I see no problem.
Using the same grammar, John spoke of two, saying, "today I....but He...", John's baptism unto repentance, and Jesus' unto newness of life.
John was not talking about simple discipleship baptism prophetically respecting Jesus. A baptism which changes an enthusiast who goes into the water to a disciple who comes out. This would include all the baptism we see in John chapters 3 & 4 for example. All of that would be supplanted by Christian baptism starting on Pentecost. Given one supplanted the other there has never been but one baptism.
I'm missing the nuance.
It's not nuance it's context. We are either talking about conversion, and transformation, etc. or we aren't. Looking at context makes that easy to identify.
When is "conversion, transformation and so on" connected to a ceremony?
Well, you've read Acts so the answer is, of course.
That seems bizarre to me...
Okay . . .
I connect each to a promise that is internalized...not with a ceremonial sprinkling or dunking.
Surely not in-spite of the grammar, and syntax of the bible, I should hope.
Do not misread this as a rejection of ceremony...I've been baptized twice myself...sprinkled congregational in Concord, NH as an infant and dunked as a young adult by a Pentecostal Jamaican in a pond in Lorraine, Ohio.
The fact that a ceremony is a ceremony is as of little note to me, as is the fact that a dog is a mammal. If the bible teaches me about the meaning and purpose of that ceremony, on the other hand, and those are significant, now suddenly that ceremony is as important to me as it's meaning and purpose.
I will never take the time to look up references. I have never memorized the Bible by chapter and verse...it's all resident, written like a single script in me.
Thank you. I'll put the relevant text of the citations in next time.
If you string a lot of references like that with me, you're wasting your time. In my experience, when folks were doing that here on CARM, too often it went down rabbit holes of non sequiturs.
I'm not trying to overcome you with a flourish of citations; there are only 12 passages that talk about the meaning and purpose of baptism, and yes it's a ceremony. I've put them here in this one link and it will take you just a few minutes to read them. I assure you you are familiar with all of them.
I was talking about power, just like Jesus was, ie miracles, dunamis, or wonders, teras in terms of the signs semeia Jesus spoke of.
In that sense I simply believe you have mistaken the text. As I believe I said above BHS occurred and will occur only three times in all of history. SB occurs whenever someone is save. SB is simply part and parcel of what happens in the baptism ceremony. People receiving gifts upon the laying on of the apostles hand, is neither BHS nor SB. It's simply receiving spiritual gifts upon the laying on of the apostles hands.
It all goes back to something Jesus said to the Pharisees: "Which is easier to say? 'Your sins are forgiven?' Or, 'Rise! Take up your bed and walk.'" Obviously the former is easier to say...because, if one speaks the latter, his reputation will either rise or be destroyed by the invalid's next move. There is no cost at all to the speaker to tell someone their sins are forgiven. Jesus took that cost on Himself so our response has neither power nor heroics...just an artificial appearance of godliness that denies the power thereof.
If you've clicked that link and read the passages, I believe you will see this comment is not warranted.
2 Tim 3:2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these! These are clearly dangerous times...and there are many that teach faith in a godliness of form only, without power...claiming falsely that that power is "not for today.
And it's your view that this is an indictment of anyone who cites Colossians 2:12 and disagrees with you about cessationism. I am sorry you feel that way.
"Thank you...that's better. Kind of a weird twist, though,
It's not a twist. That is the grammar and syntax of the passage. Paul had the entire Greek language to set out a clear statement, and he did.
trying to make Paul say
I haven't done anything other than cite you Paul's words.
we are "saved" in baptism...Paul's pretty specific about what the baptisms do to us,
Very specific, baptism is when and where we are spiritually resurrected with Christ "through faith in the working of God."
and yes...I'd argue here, both baptisms....
There is no "both" baptisms. These are the words of Paul who told us there is "one baptism" [Eph. 4:5].
because the baptism of John is immersion in water,
Baptism is a ceremony of immersion in water. John's baptism was first of all, baptism.
unto repentance,
John's baptism was "unto repentance" and it was the repentance that was "for the forgiveness of sins."
and then raised to newness of life...
This is what Paul says about Christian baptism in Romans 6.
and the baptism of Jesus is an immersion in the waters of life that flow from the innermost being.
It's fine to use the word baptism analogically as you do here, although it's not entirely clear that that passage is a reference to baptism.
Either way, Colossians illustrates both the act of obedience, and the receiving of faith.
Yes. Faith is the means of receiving grace, baptism is only the occasion.
Um....huh? John 14-18? ...says the scriptures will be "absolutely perfect?" Where does He talk about the scriptures?
For example, "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things." All things means complete. When the complete comes the partial will pass away. I draw the clear inference that Jesus is giving the 12 the task of superintending our New Testament in John 14:16-17,26; 15:16,26-27; 16:7-15; 17:7-8,14-18,20,26. This citation of passages is a link so you can just click and read to see if you agree.
I was referring you to what Peter said about baptism....that bit that you are not understanding...in Acts 10 and 11. Peter's understanding of the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus is clearest here.
I've tried to make clear what Peter is saying there, and I can't tell that you have directly responded to what I've said.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Part 2
...the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John are Luke's terms...totally biblical. Acts 19 the disciples had been baptized by Apollos
It's possible Apollos baptized them. Luke doesn't actually say that.
into John's baptism...according to the traditions of the church...
Luke doesn't tie baptism to a "tradition of the church" in any way shape or form, in chapters 18 or 19.
as Peter himself bore witness in Acts 10, baptizing the new disciples of Cornelius' house with John's baptism...
Luke says nothing about "John's baptism" in Acts 10 nor 11. John's baptism makes no appearance in those chapters.
after Jesus had baptized them with the Holy Spirit (as they had been on the day of Pentecost...with tongues)...and as Peter related this to the Council of Jerusalem in chapter 11...as I showed you.
There are, and ever will be, but three examples of BHS. Jesus' baptism, Pentecost Acts 2:1-4, and here in 10:44-46. Here is the link to all three. And it's all prophesied about here in Daniel 9:26–27. This is also a link.
You have coined the term "literal" to . . .
Now wait a minute. I didn't coin the term "literal." Baptism is literally a ceremony see Acts 8:36-39. This is also a link.
protect your dogma.
Anyone discussing the bible has to cite it and discuss what the words mean. That is not evidence of wrong doing.
I agree that there is one body, as I agree that there is One Lord and One Faith...and you agree that that One Lord is Father Son and Spirit, all three of which are literal and real...so we do not have any problems...
And there is one baptism.
Again, you have coined the term "analogical" to protect your dogma.
I did not coin the term "analogical." Words are used literally or analogically all the time.
It works for you, and fuels the argument.

Let's put it this way...you're talking about two baptisms: the "real" ceremonial water washing, and the "real" analogical baptism of the Holy Spirit, both of which are real...and only one of which, the Baptism of Jesus, was the sine qua non of Luke's testimony in Acts.
Paul says there is only one baptism and I say the same. He and I agree. The reason analogies and literal ceremonies can't be counted together is that anything that exists in the minds eye is potentially infinite in number. So while there only may be one dog Fido, Fido could be used in an infinite number of analogies.
Never once did anyone say, "Did you get dunked when you first believed....?"
Because no one Luke wrote about was from Oklahoma.
But twice there's a show stopping moment when the apostles discover that the disciples had, in fact, not received the Holy Spirit...
As I read verse 1 and 2 Paul seem to encounter these twelve alone.
as Luke said, "He had not yet fallen upon any of them..." (belying your contention that He comes with the water...
This is what the text says on that point," Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Nowhere is there a suggestion that the baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is different respecting water.
It's also very weird...Pentecost was "in the mind's eye?" Not literal? An analogy?
The image of overwhelming power of the Holy Spirit like a flood of water is what baptism means there. That is a mental image making it an analogy. The power of the Holy Spirit is real, it's just not a literal baptism ceremony.
Jesus; "John baptized with water, but you....." was an analogy? Less than? Not literal? Not real?
Again, analogical doesn't mean not real. It means the picture in the minds eye, in this case baptism, is not the literal thing you are talking about. The literal thing you are talking about is overwhelming power from the Holy Spirit in the case of BHS.
Is that what you're saying?
Thankfully not.
You are with Cotrell? Salvation comes by baptism in water?
I'm largely with Dr. Cottrell but neither one of us said that. He and I agree that we are saved by grace, through faith and in baptism.
What is wet, and external suddenly becomes real and internal?
Excuse me, but what is your view of God? Can he walk and chew gum at the same time? Did he take the short buss to school? If God says he will keep a promise in the moment of baptism I don't see that as a problem. It's beyond me why you would.
Kind of like a wafer becomes actual flesh when the jingle bells tinkle?
It may not be clear to you, but the target of your ridicule here is what the bible says about baptism. I know that is not your intention.
Sorry to keep interrupting.
It makes sense to inject your comments where they fit.
That's quite a statement...
Less so, if you remember my comment about the distinction between BHS and SB.
is that something you made up by faith? Because your claim is entirely extrabiblical. (Besides the fact that your "three" places is erroneous:

End part One
I'll be interested to hear you expand on that thought.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
What is not exceptional that is done by God?
If you admit that God is the author of the laws of nature then you are conceding my point. If there are no laws of nature there can be no miracles, the entire category would be nonsensical.
When I encountered a student's mother two years ago at the Christmas concert, I found that she had terminal brain cancer. They had given her months. I prayed for her there in the hallway outside the auditorium. Six months later, last year, she called me one day on my cell phone, and told me that she'd had as much of the tumor removed as possible. Anymore would kill her outright. She asked me to stop by and pray...often...and I did. Then she disappeared for a few months. Her son told me she had a bucket list, so she and her husband roamed the West in an RV. I hadn't seen or heard from her for months...but she went for her c-scan and MRI when she got back and they found no trace of scar tissue...let alone cancer. She has been pronounced cancer free. All I did was lay my hands on the sick according to the Word of the Lord...and the recovery was likewise according to the Word of the Lord...But because this was today, and not Jesus or Paul, this was....what? Providential? I think you're too complicated.
What pray tell do you think I do when someone is sick in our church, or field of view? Yeah, James five I'm very familiar.
My doctrine is clear. Jesus did not do miracles to "prove" anything.
He said the opposite.

""If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."" - John 10:37–38 NASB
He did miracles because compassion required miracles, and compassion is still for today.
That is true, but there are a lot of true things about Jesus' work that coincide.
His miracles proved nothing to anyone in authority, but to those in need, they proved compassion and love purchased at the price of a life laid down.
To those who were expectantly waiting for the Messiah it proved that Jesus was sent from God.
Everything He did, and the authority He wielded was as the Son of Adam...such as we are...carrying out the Edenic mandate, such as we have been called to uphold.
yes
That's fair.
;)
...that's just it: The promise was given to "...all who are afar off. To all whom the Lord our God will call.."
That promise is the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. And yes that promise is for "as many as the Lord our God may call." That is quite different from supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I assume that includes you...unless you think that the call is not for today. Jesus passed His glory unto all who come to believe the apostles...I assume you accept that Glory is still for today? There is nothing that says He withdrew His compassion. There is nothing that suggests we are no longer in need...What you say up ahead is rather sobering actually:
I'm not sure of your meaning here.
Tumors disappear...Contravention of "nature". To me...the tumor/the virus is a contravention of nature and we enforce the general providence of the original design by rejecting the rogue nature of cancer cells and viruses.
This does not address my point. You and I can trade stories like this forever.
When you are clueless...which we all are, you either "follow the science" which means take someone else's guesses as better than yours, or accept whatever...which is merely fatalism with a dash of religion.
There is no way you can get from what I wrote to your comment here. That is not responsive to, or descriptive of, anything I said or meant.
"Dear God heal my sister...or else let her die in peace with no pain...or a little pain...or whatever." I actually heard a pastor pray like that. Not a highlight of my walk. The woman died of cancer, her husband married the next week, the kids were strungout on drugs...and people were all still talking about the "will of God"...as if He had anything to do with any of that.
Oh, my goodness. I don't know where you are going with this, but whatever inspired this, has zero to do with a reasonable reading of my comment.
I'm very serious about this: do not go to Haiti. Just don't. Revelations 18 should be enough to quench that, but guess what the devil would like you to believe. Deny his existence, and his ability to disrupt even a Christian church. The sorcerers are even now casting their spells to destroy ministries everywhere...just as we pray that their designs be thwarted...It's called warfare. When satan is roaming looking for whom he may devour...his most powerful weapon is the unbelief of the "believer" who has been trained that he is without resource in this age.

You've fallen for a lie, sister. Do not go to Haiti, a nation that gave itself over to voodoo decades ago.

;) I try to be nice...Seriously. I try. With varying degrees of success.


You did not answer my question. You're tacitly saying God withdrew both grace and compassion. I'd love to know when.
You've misconstrued literally everything I've said in this post, to say nothing of calling me "sister." I'm not sure there is enough good will to expect an honest response. But I've resolved not to break my neck to correct your mischaracterization of what I wrote in these final comments.
 

tbeachhead

Member
Part One...First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. This actually becomes a highlight of my day. It's been a while since I was able to engage anywhere in such an important debate. I'm very grateful.
Okay, I see no problem.
John was not talking about simple discipleship baptism prophetically respecting Jesus. A baptism which changes an enthusiast who goes into the water to a disciple who comes out. This would include all the baptism we see in John chapters 3 & 4 for example. All of that would be supplanted by Christian baptism starting on Pentecost. Given one supplanted the other there has never been but one baptism.
I think you might need to look again...your distinction is artificial. John was indeed talking about "simple discipleship baptism" Read what his word was to the Pharisees, asking them why they had even come out. Read what his answers were to those who asked what they should do! It was as it is written, a baptism unto repentance, requiring the acts that accompany that repentance, and it was this, John's baptism of repentance that Jesus carried on in John 4 and that continued throughout the book of Acts. It was no different with Phillip and the Ethiopian, and no different in Caesarea or Ephesus. It was not a "ceremony," defined as an act or series of acts performed according to a traditional or prescribed form, unless you mean to redefine the term. There was no tradition...traditions require repetition over time, and this was brand new. There was no prescribed form, no liturgy...the only requirement was "sufficient water." There is never any indication at all that baptism changed from John's dunking at Aenon near Salim, where the water was plentiful and Jesus baptizing in the Judean countryside. The Pharisees were concerned that "Jesus was gaining more disciples than John..." Neither was concerned with the terminology...they baptized and made disciples...and John pointed to Jesus, and Jesus recognized John as among the greatest prophets of all time. Heck, they knew each other from the womb...where John learned first to dance with joy. Your predilection for distinguishing ceremony actually belies the testimony set down in the scripture, and adds to what is written.
It's not nuance it's context. We are either talking about conversion, and transformation, etc. or we aren't. Looking at context makes that easy to identify.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make here. The baptism of John referred to conversion and transformation...look at what he said again. There was no point in baptizing without the accompanying acts that are worthy of repentance. There is no New Testament baptism shown without accompanying conversion and transformation...and no one made a distinction between John's baptism and that which the disciples and apostles all carried on into the book of Acts.

Well, you've read Acts so the answer is, of course.
I've indeed read Acts a few times...and, contextually, there is no "ceremony." There is John, as first mention, and then a list of folks who agree to get wet in obedience to the prophetic call that was issued, first by John the baptizer, then by Jesus and his disciples in the Judean countryside, then by the apostles and the disciples throughout the book of Acts. There is never a change in the baptism that John promoted...by water. Jesus and John both prophesized the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Okay . . .Surely not in-spite of the grammar, and syntax of the bible, I should hope.
Your claim looks suspiciously like an argument to authority...I passed my class in Greek exegesis in seminary. Suppose you explain your comment specifically referring to whatever context you see in the biblical Greek text. I've stuck to the whole context as it is written, and I'm careful with the translations I choose...

The fact that a ceremony is a ceremony is as of little note to me, as is the fact that a dog is a mammal. If the bible teaches me about the meaning and purpose of that ceremony, on the other hand, and those are significant, now suddenly that ceremony is as important to me as it's meaning and purpose.
I get what you're saying here...and I think we agree...the obedience of faith is the essence of faith itself, as James explains so well. "I'll show you my faith by my works..." In other words, faith is borne out by what we do. And in that, we're not saved because we are baptized...we are baptized, because we're saved.
Thank you. I'll put the relevant text of the citations in next time. I'm not trying to overcome you with a flourish of citations; there are only 12 passages that talk about the meaning and purpose of baptism, and yes it's a ceremony. I've put them here in this one link and it will take you just a few minutes to read them. I assure you you are familiar with all of them.
I'm familiar with all of them.
In that sense I simply believe you have mistaken the text. As I believe I said above BHS occurred and will occur only three times in all of history. SB occurs whenever someone is save. SB is simply part and parcel of what happens in the baptism ceremony. People receiving gifts upon the laying on of the apostles hand, is neither BHS nor SB. It's simply receiving spiritual gifts upon the laying on of the apostles hands.
Your clarity is not working for me...what is "SB"? I tried to find it using the search button, and this entire post got erased.

Are you saying "SB is Spirit Baptism"? And if so, are you distinguishing "Spirit Baptism" from the "BHS--Baptism in/of the Holy Spirit?" Because if that's what you're doing, you've abandoned Greek context, syntax and grammar altogether, and your distinction is convenient, but entirely artificial and unbiblical.

If you ever said "BHS occurred and will occur only three times in all of history", I missed it; but with that claim you've contradicted John the Baptist, and created a sect that on this point divorces itself entirely from scripture. That claim was never made in any of the cessationist literature I enjoyed...and my bibliography is not minimal: Chantry, Unger, Hoekema, Bruner and lately and least significantly MacArthur, who abandoned biblical hermeneutics altogether with his invention of the "historic method of exegesis" whereby you nullify the promise of scripture when the history books have ignored the manifestations thereof over a long enough period of time.
 
Top