There Is Only One Baptism With the Holy Spirit By Jesus Christ

[cyberjosh]

I'll give a hearty "Amen" to this, except ...
"filling" must not be a continuous action, but it definitely is encouraged in the epistles.

I can agree with that. I mostly meant "must" in order to be/remain filled. Thanks for your thoughts.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Okay, there is one thing you could clear up for me here though John. You said:

Yes, I forget if all of the uses of "filled" mean "filled continually".
Personally, I believe "filled" only refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, as in "filled to over-flowing".

It is possible (I am still investigating this) that the Baptism of the Spirit in Acts (as opposed to the use of baptizo in the epistles) refers to (or leads to) a specific kind of filling, but still as I pointed out I distinguish baptism and filling as not being 100% equivalent, and you in your last post seemed to agree with what you quoted me as saying. So then do you or do you not believe that filling "only" refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? As I pointed out the Baptism only happens once but fillings happen many times, thus they cannot be strictly equivalent. Do you just think that the Baptism it is a special kind of filling? I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

Thanks,
Josh

 

[Levi]

There is no need to be confused over this. There are only two baptisms.

There is Baptism in the Holy Spirit that results in a man born of water already, being born again of the Spirit. This signifies that salvation is only open to humans.

Then there is the ceremonial Baptism practiced by the Levites in the temple through out their history.

This baptism is symbolic of the passing on of the priesthood from one priest to another.

In the years Of our Lords journey on the earth there was an illegitimate high priest in office, Caiaphas

He was a stoolly put in office by Herod for political reasons, he was not the legitimate descendant who should have been in office.

The whole of Judah was just one big circus! stooly high priests, robbers making the temple a den of thieves, teachers of the law leading men into their graves....

This is why I love Jesus so much, and the disciples who where a rag tag bunch some of them real roughnecks would have loved every minute of these happenings outside of the establishment. what JOY, to realize that society who had made you out to be a less than was actually a big wrought!

All of a sudden out of the wilderness comes this wild eyed long haired bum who had been living on insects and enjoying his own company (the only thing missing would have been the brown paper bag)

God was already working in the wilderness.

Guess who this guy was? Go on I dare you!

He was John the Baptist 'rightfull descendant to the office of high priest' who should have been standing in the place where Caiaphas was.

Luke 3:2
" during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. "

So when he baptized Jesus, as Jesus said 'he must'

He transferred the high priesthood onto Jesus! The order of Melchizidek

Baptism of the priesthood is passed down through us, one to the other in this priestly tradition of the nation of Israel in the order of Melchizadek.

That's why water baptism has it's place.

Peter seeing that Cornelius had been baptized in the Holy Spirit 'saw no reason to withhold water baptism from him'

Hallelujah Praise the Lord!

 

[Levi]

Okay, there is one thing you could clear up for me here though John. You said:



It is possible (I am still investigating this) that the Baptism of the Spirit in Acts (as opposed to the use of baptizo in the epistles) refers to (or leads to) a specific kind of filling, but still as I pointed out I distinguish baptism and filling as not being 100% equivalent, and you in your last post seemed to agree with what you quoted me as saying. So then do you or do you not believe that filling "only" refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? As I pointed out the Baptism only happens once but fillings happen many times, thus they cannot be strictly equivalent. Do you just think that the Baptism it is a special kind of filling? I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

Thanks,
Josh

I think that John the Baptist summed it up : "He must become greater and I must become lesser"

Gods will on you to do something is not a new filing. The key, the more of your old man you let go the more room for the Holy Spirit to flow freely within and (very importantly) outwardly from you!

 

[John Zain]

Okay, there is one thing you could clear up for me here though John.
It is possible (I am still investigating this) that the Baptism of the Spirit in Acts (as opposed to the use of baptizo in the epistles) refers to (or leads to) a specific kind of filling, but still as I pointed out I distinguish baptism and filling as not being 100% equivalent, and you in your last post seemed to agree with what you quoted me as saying. So then do you or do you not believe that filling "only" refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? As I pointed out the Baptism only happens once but fillings happen many times, thus they cannot be strictly equivalent. Do you just think that the Baptism it is a special kind of filling? I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

I haven't researched it, but I believe the "fillings" below apply to this baptism.

Sorry, I don't remember if I've already posted this ...

The Scripture PASSAGES below explain what this baptism of the Holy Spirit is all about.
And the important DETAILS in each passage are shown in the chart below.
Please notice how these details are so inter-connected (i.e. linked) in the chart.

1 Luke 24:49 ------ 8 Acts 8:14-19
2 Acts 1:4-8 ------ 9 Acts 9:17-18
3 Acts 2:1-4 ----- 10 Romans 15:19
4 Acts 2:33-39 --- 11 Acts 10:44-48
5 Acts 4:8-16 ---- 12 Acts 11:15-17
6 Acts 4:31 ------ 13 Acts 14:3
7 Acts 5:12-16 ----14 Acts 19:5-6

------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
the Promise --------Y-Y---Y-------------------------
baptized with HS -----Y-------------Y--------Y-----Y
the gift -----------------Y---------------Y--Y------
upon ---------------Y Y Y---------Y-------Y--Y-----Y
laying on of hands ---------------Y-Y-----------Y--Y
filled with HS ---------Y---Y-Y-----Y---------------
received HS ----------------------Y-------Y---------
speaking tongues -------Y-----------------Y--------Y
power --------------Y-Y-----------Y----Y------------
boldness -------------------Y-Y-----------------Y---
miracles -------------------Y---Y---Y--Y--------Y---

 

[Sinthesis]

There is no need to be confused over this. There are only two baptisms.

There is Baptism in the Holy Spirit that results in a man born of water already, being born again of the Spirit. This signifies that salvation is only open to humans.

Then there is the ceremonial Baptism practiced by the Levites in the temple through out their history.

This baptism is symbolic of the passing on of the priesthood from one priest to another.

In the years Of our Lords journey on the earth there was an illegitimate high priest in office, Caiaphas

He was a stoolly put in office by Herod for political reasons, he was not the legitimate descendant who should have been in office.

The whole of Judah was just one big circus! stooly high priests, robbers making the temple a den of thieves, teachers of the law leading men into their graves....

This is why I love Jesus so much, and the disciples who where a rag tag bunch some of them real roughnecks would have loved every minute of these happenings outside of the establishment. what JOY, to realize that society who had made you out to be a less than was actually a big wrought!

All of a sudden out of the wilderness comes this wild eyed long haired bum who had been living on insects and enjoying his own company (the only thing missing would have been the brown paper bag)

God was already working in the wilderness.

Guess who this guy was? Go on I dare you!

He was John the Baptist 'rightfull descendant to the office of high priest' who should have been standing in the place where Caiaphas was.

Luke 3:2
" during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. "

So when he baptized Jesus, as Jesus said 'he must'

He transferred the high priesthood onto Jesus! The order of Melchizidek

Baptism of the priesthood is passed down through us, one to the other in this priestly tradition of the nation of Israel in the order of Melchizadek.

That's why water baptism has it's place.

Peter seeing that Cornelius had been baptized in the Holy Spirit 'saw no reason to withhold water baptism from him'

Hallelujah Praise the Lord!

I don't know that there "are only two baptisms", but this is a very enlightening post.

 

[Webb]

Eph. 4:5 stll reads "one baptism''. Last time I went to school "one" was still "one" and not "two".

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

There is only one Baptism. With two aspects. We believe into Christ by believing God. By believing the Gospel God reveals to us. Like Abraham. When we believe God, the expression of that faith is water baptism. At that point of expression the Spirit Baptizes us into Christ, into the Body of Christ. One Baptism, two aspects. What we do and what the Spirit does simultaneously.

FC

 

[Webb]

Hi Former Christian: How you doing? May I respectfully say I disagree with your post. You said: "We believe into Christ---". Where, may I ask, does the scripture say that?

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

In the Greek alone. You won't find it in any English translation that I'm aware of.

In John 3:16, the phrase "whoever believes in him" (NIV)

In Rom 6:3, the phrase "baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death" (NIV)

You would think that different pronouns were used in the Greek in these two texts. One meaning "in" the other meaning "into". But it's not so. The same Greek preposition is used in both texts. There is a Greek preposition that means "in". Present in John 3:14 and translated correctly in the KJV and the NIV. The one used here means "into". Why the inconsistency in translation? Because John 3:16 is an interpretive translation that goes along with the belief of Christianity that has been around for centuries. We receive eternal life by our faith in Christ. But the Greek says that we receive eternal life by believing into Christ.

Believing into Christ is the same as Abraham’s faith. We believe God and the Gospel he presents us. Then we are Justified by imputation. Not in the sense that is usually claimed in Christianity. We believe into Christ by believing God and we are water baptized as a work of that faith. And baptized by the Spirit into Christ. Our faith doesn’t Justify us. Water baptism doesn’t Justify us. It’s God who Justifies through the faith of Christ (Rom 3:22). Which is another problem in itself if you note the differences between the KJV that translates this Rom verse correctly, and most modern translations that translate this verse differently. It is Christ’s righteousness that’s imputed to us in the sense that when we believe into and are baptized into Christ, We are Justified by virtue of being in Christ. In Christ, it is Christ’s faith that Justifies us. There is one in your own denomination that teaches we are Justified by the faith of Christ. A man named Coffman I believe. It’s been a long time since I saw it.

You won't find any agreement for this view as a whole in Christianity. As I remember, even that person in your own denomination didn’t believe that we receive eternal life by believing into Christ. The Grammarians will say that both Greek prepositions mean the same. And that's one of the things that led me to learn the Greek. That Greek prepositions are pretty much considered synonymous in Christianity and is reflected in the English translations. From the KJV to the present. If one believes in a universal Church, this problem is solved by majority rule. The majority believes as the English translations show. Or solved by the authority of the Church in the Orthodox/Catholic Churches.

If you read many of my posts, you'll find that much of what I believe is very much a minority position in relation to Christianity. Can't help that. I gotta with what I'm given.

FC

 

[John Zain]

Eph. 4:5 stll reads "one baptism''. Last time I went to school "one" was still "one" and not "two".

Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ,
let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation
of repentance from dead works and
of faith toward God,
of the doctrine of baptisms (plural),
of laying on of hands,
of resurrection of the dead, and
of eternal judgment.

Anyone up to a wee challenge?
Why don't you do some interviewing of the many millions around
the globe who have received the baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Methinks they will ALL testify that there are more than ONE baptism.
But, if you prefer ONE to ALL, then you may remain as you are.

 

[Asyncritus]

Eph. 4:5 stll reads "one baptism''. Last time I went to school "one" was still "one" and not "two".

Ah, but if you're Drew or Free, one is three and three is one!

Sorry guys. Couldn't resist!

 

[Asyncritus]

Webb

In the Greek alone. You won't find it in any English translation that I'm aware of.

In John 3:16, the phrase "whoever believes in him" (NIV)

In Rom 6:3, the phrase "baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death" (NIV)

You would think that different pronouns were used in the Greek in these two texts. One meaning "in" the other meaning "into". But it's not so. The same Greek preposition is used in both texts. There is a Greek preposition that means "in". Present in John 3:14 and translated correctly in the KJV and the NIV. The one used here means "into". Why the inconsistency in translation? Because John 3:16 is an interpretive translation that goes along with the belief of Christianity that has been around for centuries. We receive eternal life by our faith in Christ. But the Greek says that we receive eternal life by believing into Christ.

Well, I never.

You're absolutely right:

ο πιστευων εις αυτον

Believing into Christ is the same as Abraham’s faith. We believe God and the Gospel he presents us. Then we are Justified by imputation. Not in the sense that is usually claimed in Christianity. We believe into Christ by believing God and we are water baptized as a work of that faith. And baptized by the Spirit into Christ. Our faith doesn’t Justify us. Water baptism doesn’t Justify us. It’s God who Justifies through the faith of Christ (Rom 3:22). Which is another problem in itself if you note the differences between the KJV that translates this Rom verse correctly, and most modern translations that translate this verse differently. It is Christ’s righteousness that’s imputed to us in the sense that when we believe into and are baptized into Christ, We are Justified by virtue of being in Christ. In Christ, it is Christ’s faith that Justifies us. There is one in your own denomination that teaches we are Justified by the faith of Christ. A man named Coffman I believe. It’s been a long time since I saw it.

You still amaze me. Have you read that document I sent to you?

 

[Webb]

Hi FC
While not a preacher I myself study NT Greek. It is my belief you need to give a fuller study to the word "eis".

You wrote: "There is one in your own denomination that teaches we are justified by the faith of Christ. A man named Coffman I believe." As I understand it there are two problelms with your statement.

1. I do not have a denomination. I am not in a denomination. I came out of the ungodly world and into denominations, several of them. I continiued to study the scripture and came out of them. The Lord's church is not a denomination.

2. I knew Mr. Coffman (providing we are talking about the same man) he is deceased now. I do know he didn't understand what you think he meant by the phrase "justified by the faith of Christ." I too believe that.

God bless!

 

[Asyncritus]

Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ,
let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation
of repentance from dead works and
of faith toward God,
of the doctrine of baptisms (plural),
of laying on of hands,
of resurrection of the dead, and
of eternal judgment.

Sorry John, I think you got that wrong.

Those are probably the Jewish washings up to the elbows etc.

 

[Webb]

Hi John
I agree with Asyncritus: "you got that wrong".

In addition to the ceremonial washings of the Jewish religion of that day the NT speaks of no less than 7 baptisms:
1. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Matt.3:11
2. Baptism of fire, Matt.3:1
3. Baptism of John, Matt.3:16
4. Baptism of Moses, I Cor.10:2
5. Baptism of suffering, Luke 15:30
6. Baptism for the dead, I Cor.15:29
7. Baptism of the great commission, Matt.28:18-20

I believe the last baptism mentioned above ( Matt.28 ) to be the "one baptism" of Eph.4:5. By the time Paul wrote Ephesians there was either "one" baptism as he said or he was wrong and wrote by some other spirit than the Holy Spirit.

I shall not accept the"wee challenge" of "millions" of uninspired people. I'm (if I may say so without being offensive) only interested in wdhat the Bible teaches, not the testimony of uninspired man.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

“I do not have a denomination. I am not in a denomination. I came out of the ungodly world and into denominations, several of them. I continiued to study the scripture and came out of them. The Lord's church is not a denomination.â€

You studied the Scripture and failed to see what the New Testament says about the ekklesia? Failed to see there’s no such thing as “The Lord's church�

You said on the “Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped†thread,

“I am a member of the church of Christ. Can you show one thing Campbell taught that the churches of Christ teach that is not scriptural???â€

That’s a pretty clear statement that you are involved with a Church associated historically and doctrinally with the Restoration Movement.

The Lord’s Church. You’ll have to take up the matter with Francis who believes the same thing about his Church. Or with any number of other Christian communities that believe the same thing about their Church.

And that reveals the true situation in Christianity. The first step to overcoming any problem is to acknowledge that one has a problem. The obvious fact of division is seen by Christians. But there isn’t any acknowledgement that they may be a part of the problem. Denominationalism is perpetuated and denominationalism continues. I’m not in that anymore. In a more realistic way than you are. So your argument isn’t with me in that regard.

The Lord doesn’t have a Church. He has a Body, a Kingdom, a Priesthood, etc. According to the New Testament, the ekklesia are simply to express these things here on earth in a non-denominational way in a non-divisional way, so that the world can believe that God truly sent Jesus Christ. Something that’s not possible in Christianity. Of which you are still a part whether you realize it or not.

Can’t have a discussion with someone who believes it’s their Church that’s God’s Church. The only truth is God’s truth in God’s Church. I’m just a heathen out here in the nether world to one who believes that their Church is God’s Church. What would I know about God’s truth in God’s Church? I already got burned by Francis. You can put your matches away.

FC

 

[Webb]

FormerChristin wrote: "The Lord doesn't have a church."

The truth is, Jesus said: "upon this rock I will build my church", Matt.16:18.
Whose church?? Christ's church! ( unless of course you do not believe Jesus is Lord)

The truth is, Paul wrote "the churches of Christ salute you", Rom.16:16. Churches of who?? what?? "churches of Christ" of course, unless again you do not believe Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

All references from the KJV.

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As I said, you’ll have to argue with Francis about that. He has a different view than you about the nature of the rock, as do I.


Ro 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

Paul also wrote,

Ro 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
2Co 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
Ga 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
2Th 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

There’s only reason you would single out the one reference to “churches of Christâ€. And bypass the obvious meaning of the verse,

Ga 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:


FC

 

[Webb]

Hi FormerChristian---You hint I have a bias in that I mentioned onliy Rom.16:16: "the churches of Christ salute you". Not so. It proves the chiurch universal. But further, my brethren are comfortable with ANY name the scripture gives the church in the NT. ANY!

I count 10 scriptures you used, all of which I accept because they are scripture in use of names. From those scriptures you gave churches of the Gentiles is used once. In Paul's day mankind was designated in racial terms as Jews and Gentiles. In the area I live there is both a black and white congregation. We have blacks in our mostly white congregation, but the point is we teach the same thing.

In one passage you gave it mentions churches of the saints. Do you think they taught a different doctrine than the churches of the Gentiles? I think not.

Twice the passages you submitted ust the expression churches of Galatia, and onee churches of Asia and onece churches of Macedonia and once churches of Judea. Do you think they each taught different doctrines? Again, I think not.

About three times the passages you offered use the phrase church of God or churches of God. Did they teach differently from the above?

The word "church" is used more than any other term.

One passage you did not submit is Acts 20:20. "feed the church of God." Jesus is God and the passage so shows who purchased the church---Jesus Christ!

Paul told the Corinthians he taught the same thing in all the churches. Paul warned the Galatians against any other gospel. These were in danger of slipping from the "faith" once for all delivered, and the application is for us as well, and if not, WHY NOT?
God bless