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

[Levi]

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!

What FC is failing to recognize is that he has become a denomination unto himself! He has his own set of doctrines that he follows.

The danger here is that there is no one to reproach him or verify his version of the truth as being God's will.

"where two or three gather in my name I will be there amongst them"

I myself am non denominational but for the afore mentioned reasons I do not make issue over it.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that loves the Lord and has been born again is my brother and we are of the same body, same belief and the same Church.

dead simple really, if someone wants to make issue over a denomination with myself or my teachings, then that is their religiosity not mine.

 

[Stormcrow]

Acts however was not written by Paul and may (I am not sold on this interpretation yet) employ the terminology of baptism by the Spirit differently as per Luke's usage.

Luke was a disciple of Paul's and traveled with him on some of his missionary journeys. As both a disciple of Paul and writer of Acts, it would therefore stand to reason that Luke would have used the word baptism in the same sense Paul did.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

“"the churches of Christ salute you". Not so. It proves the chiurch universal.â€

A plurality of Churches proves the Church universal? I don’t think I have to imply bias.


“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.â€

I take it there’s a difference in language. Hopefully it’s a matter of distance. Maybe you should consider meeting in homes.



Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The context shows the reference is to a single ekklesia, not to a universal Church,

Acts 20:
17 ¶ And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
19 Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

And don’t even think about saying that I’m saying that the blood doesn’t apply to all who are in Christ.


This ends here. It’s not the subject of this thread. Your Church isn’t any more the true Church than is the RCC or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians as far as I’m concerned. You just belong to a denomination, divided into more than one denomination, started by the Campbells. And you are perpetuating denominationalism in the name of your own universal Church. Churches of Christ, the RCC, the Lutherans and the Presbyterian denominations practice closed communion against one another. But the authority of each is their own, not God’s, not Christ’s. Definitely not Christ’s (John 17:21-23). I wish Christians could see the truth of that, the truth of that in their own denominations. But most can’t. I wish I knew why. People are joining a religion because of it and think they’re getting Christ.

I’m not a part of that man-made religion any more.

Former Christian

 

[Former Christian]

Levi

"What FC is failing to recognize is that he has become a denomination unto himself! He has his own set of doctrines that he follows.

The danger here is that there is no one to reproach him or verify his version of the truth as being God's will.

"where two or three gather in my name I will be there amongst them"

I myself am non denominational but for the afore mentioned reasons I do not make issue over it.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that loves the Lord and has been born again is my brother and we are of the same body, same belief and the same Church.

dead simple really, if someone wants to make issue over a denomination with myself or my teachings, then that is their religiosity not mine."


Yeah, right. You're just as much a denomination as anyone else by your own definition. And if I'm a denomination, I may as well chuck it all, because that must be all any of it is worth. Don't tempt me.

FC

 

[felix]

RIGHT! Only ONE baptism today. It is water baptism.

(1Pet 3:21) There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Levi]

Yeah, right. You're just as much a denomination as anyone else by your own definition. And if I'm a denomination, I may as well chuck it all, because that must be all any of it is worth. Don't tempt me.

FC

Chuck what?

I don't need to tempt you, you have just displayed your base! How can you chuck something you did not ask for in the first place nor gained by your own efforts?

Your concept that the Lord does not have a Church is one such doctrine that you use to define your point of difference to all other denominations.

I believe that the Lord does have a Church and that The Lords Body or "Church"
encompasses all of them.

I do not subscribe to anyone particular denomination but I believe there are sheep and goats in all of them and the sheep are part of the true Church.

I have meet many Spirit filled people from the various denominations and I know they are of God.

I fellowship with pastors and people from different denominations in a small group setting. Denominational doctrines are never brought into it, if they are it is only as points of note or reference.

I do not attend anyone denomination in particular's worship services or meetings.

This is why I am non denominational, not because I believe they are all wrong or doing wrong!

But because I have chosen not to nail my faith to a church house door.

(buy I thank God that Luther did!)

 

[Levi]

(1Pet 3:21) There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

That is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible I believe

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I believe the Ephesians 4:4-6 were not referencing water baptism at all, but just the baptism with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ.

In Acts 10:34-48, Gentile believers had received the promise of the Spirit by believing the very words that Peter had spoken before they were even baptized by water thus one does not need water baptism to be baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ at their salvation.

Paul made this distinction in how water baptism does not play a crucial part in one's salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Peter agreed also because the answer of a good conscience by believing is how one is saved: not by the putting away of the filth as water would do.

1 Peter 3: 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Romans 10:8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

All in all: I believe Ephesians 4:4-6 was referencing the one baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ which had occurred at our salvation when we first had believed in Him.

(Maybe it is just a slip up, but Paul is atributed to be the writer of this letter to a church located at Ephesus. The Ephesians, the church members, are not the authors of this document as your first line indicated.)

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I don't think a lot of progress is going to ocurr from this discussion without venturing into the actual problem. Without the identification of a cause that is the true cause, the concensus if one is reached, will produce an invalid course of correction. I think it needs to be noted that one of the roles that the Holy spirit and only the Holy spirit occupies, is teaching the correct interpertation of the scriptures to those who have actually been born again of God. There is only one correct interpertation of the scripture in regard to what the crucifixion of Jesus has perfected. For if it is true that there are equally valid interpertations then there exist more than one way to become born again of God, but there is not. The spirit of God is not granted as a gift to anyone who believes an incorrect message of salvation. For the gift of God's spirit is the verification that the message of salvation is correct and the absense of that gift is the verification that the doctrine of salvation proposed is incorrect. We must not take lightly that a heresy of salvation was introduced. And since there is no evidence manifested, i.e. in sight, of the gift of God's spirit contemporaneously this factoid does indeed manifest that what is taught as the gospel of God is an error.

 

[cyberjosh]

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.

So you mean to imply that Baptism of the Spirit (#1) ceased by the time Ephesians was written, else Paul is a liar?

Have you considered that only spiritual realities are mentioned in Ephesians 4:4-6?

Another passage which should be considered is 1 Corinthians 12:13 which is parallel to 1 Corinthians 10:2-4 (#4) in terminology ("baptized", "drink"). That refers to a universal baptism of all believers into the body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:27) - with no indication of ceasing.

 

[cyberjosh]

Luke was a disciple of Paul's and traveled with him on some of his missionary journeys. As both a disciple of Paul and writer of Acts, it would therefore stand to reason that Luke would have used the word baptism in the same sense Paul did.

That certainly makes enough sense, although now I am considering the different ways in which the word baptizo is employed in Scripture.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Bonairos]

This thread certainly has some twists and turns as it relates to baptism(s), the Holy Spirit, etc. Not sure where to chime in as the dialog has gone this way and that.

But for what it's worth, where (if at all) does Acts 19:1-6 factor in?!

And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?â€

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.â€

And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?†So they said, “Into John’s baptism.â€

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.â€

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

(copied from biblegateway.com/NKJV)


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[John Zain]

And if I'm a denomination, I may as well chuck it all, because that must be all any of it is worth.
Don't tempt me.

Okay, do you agree that we must not look to man, but only to God, i.e. to Jesus?
You will always be disappointed if you look to man, i.e. depend on, rely on, follow man.

That out of the way (hopefully), what troubles you the most about God and/or His word?
Because all that you should be concerned with is ...
Christianity is believing God's word and having a relationship with Jesus.

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

“Okay, do you agree that we must not look to man, but only to God, i.e. to Jesus?”

Yes. Through walking by the Spirit of God.


“You will always be disappointed if you look to man, i.e. depend on, rely on, follow man.”

Too much of a generalization. I’ve been disappointed in Christian fellow man just as much as Atheist fellow man. And in some of each, I’ve not been disappointed at all. Apparently, the Christian religion doesn’t affect man toward greater reliability in that way.


“what troubles you the most about God and/or His word?”

Nothing at all.

I trust that God has an explanation for the fact that the God of the Old Testament destroyed most of the human race at one point and condoned the Israelites killing women and children. In seeming total contradiction to the God in the New Testament who loved that same race so much that he sent his own Son to redeem them.

And I trust that God has an explanation as to why “His Word” has so many discrepancies.


“Because all that you should be concerned with is ...
Christianity is believing God's word and having a relationship with Jesus.”

That is what I’m concerned about. Because Christianity isn’t about that at all. Denominationalism shows it’s not about believing God’s word, rather interpretations about God’s word. And having a relationship with Jesus is relegated to those few who are mystical enough to believe in the supernatural enough to realize that those who are in Christ are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus through the Spirit of God.


FC

 

[Former Christian]

Levi

“"What FC is failing to recognize is that he has become a denomination unto himself! He has his own set of doctrines that he follows.â€

This seems to be the most popular way to condone Christian denominations. Everyone is a denominationalist whether they want to be or not. And it’s impossible not to be.

What Levi is failing to recognize is that if everyone is a denomination, they can’t be anything having to do with Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ can’t be known as the one sent by God through division. Much less follow such a Christ. What they have is according to the common saying, “he got religionâ€. And religion can be had in Islam and Buddhism just as easy as in Christianity.


Since I don’t think that this matter, “the one Universal Church and the denominations of Christianity†belongs on this thread, I will put what I believe about the matter on a separate thread, if someone is interested enough to start one.

FC

 

[Bonairos]

"I trust that God has an explanation for the fact . . . "

"And I trust that God has an explanation as to why . . ."

Just seeking a quick update.

Last I recall (hence the update) you stated your position as a "former" Christian turned athiest.

Perhaps I missed somethng along the way. Are you now (again) a believer in God or do you still claim to be a non-believer attempting to explain biblical matters to those who do believe?

Thanks. Your response could make a difference in how your posts are received and the spirit in which they derive from.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Webb]

Hi Former Christian

The two congregations in our community (black and white) teach the same thing, the black congregation wishes to maintain their own congregation. We hold a joint service together at a nursing home once a month. Full fellowship between the two.

You wrote: ''A PLURALITY OF CHURCHES PROVES THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL? I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO IMPLY BIAS.'' "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16) and "churches of God" (I Cor.11:16) imply the church universal. How else might God worded it if universal?

Of Acts 20:28 please note that I did not say it was universal. The very verse itself proves this refers to the church at Epheses, not the universal church---"Take heed therefore unto yourselves (the elders at Ephesus, emp. mine) and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you oversseers,--" (elders are overseers over but one congregation). Please do not put words in my mouth.

I used Acts 20:28 because of the words "the church of God", showing that that is also a scriptural name for the church and that my brethren accept that. The names in the NT for the church will (if you will study carefully) break down into Christ. In Acts 20:20 the church is called "church of God". Yet He (God) purchased the church with His own blood. It was Christ who did that, not the Father. Much more if you wish.

You falsely state the church of Christ was "started by the Campbells." I challenge you to show one thing Campbell taught that I teach that is not also taught in the scripture.

You state we practice closed communion. That too is false. We practice what the scripture teaches: "---let a man examine himself---" I Cor. 11:28.

But FormerChristian, I have good news for you. You too, can become and be just simply a Christian, nothing more, nothing less and nothing different.
God bless

 

[John Zain]

I trust that God has an explanation for the fact that the God of the Old Testament destroyed most of the human race at one point and condoned the Israelites killing women and children. In seeming total contradiction to the God in the New Testament who loved that same race so much that he sent his own Son to redeem them.

Re: the above ... You have never comprehended what the OT is all about.
But, you are far from being alone.

I met a man who had PhD's in Economics from 6 different countries.
And he was voted by the Jews to be the #1 expert in the USA on (I forget exactly) Judaism, the OT, etc.
But, he told me that He could not understand at all WHY God could allow the Holocaust.

THIS is the ignorance of people about the OT, which is something NO ONE should be ignorant about.

BECAUSE it is absolutely foundational to understand this.
Foundational to Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... since all 3 claim to believe in the OT.
(American liberal Jews do not, but that's another story.)

Amazing ... totally Amazing.

So, FC, this CAN be your first step towards understanding God's spiritual Truth.
If you choose to accept this challenge.
Sounds a bit like Mission Impossible, doesn't it?

 

[Webb]

FormerChristrian

God does not owe you, me or anyone else an explanation of ANIYTHING.

 

[felix]

(1Pet 3:21) There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

That is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible I believe

I believe it's plain and simple for everyone to understand.

Further Peter is writing this letter to common people who are Gentiles as in 1Pet 1:1.