where are the scriptures you have found that proves that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had replaced water baptism and how could those scriptures be considered conjecture if it was written in the word?
Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?
- Thread starter Bible Highlighter
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dropship
Well-Known Member
That's why God gives us free will to decide for ourselves what we should do, (call it a test) because if we were to strictly follow everything laid down in the Bible there'd be no end to it.
For example if my eye catches a nice lady and my pulse rate goes up a few notches, I won't pluck out my naughty eye..
Likewise Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel, but I hate travel and would much rather watch a video from my collection ('Khartoum' arrived yesterday, yippee..
Jesus also liked wine whereas I hate the stuff, I tried a few sips in my early teens but it tasted like cat pee so I've avoided it ever since.
PS- Wine was served at the last supper where Jesus said "The next time I drink wine i'll be drinking it with you in my father's kingdom"
That lets me out then (sniffle)
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
William Tyndale - Wikipedia
Before the time of the Gutenberg press William Tyndale was smuggling hand written copies of the New Testament all around Europe.
He was killed for his efforts.
The whole story about the Bible and Catholics goes south pretty quick.
Since back in the day Church and state were bed fellows so sometimes it is hard to put a finger on the guilty party.
But the Church or the Catholic heads of state killed people by the tens of thousands and that is not counting the witch hunts and inquisitions or the Thirty Year War. There is no question about the Church killing people, the only question was the topic of the day.
Catholic Bibles were written in Latin so most could not read them and they were definitely not distributed to the Public. It was the Protestants that made the first effort to get the Word of God to the people. Here is a list of the more well known Protestant martyrs associated with the Protestant Reformation.
List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation - Wikipedia.
Thank you for your being loving in Christ. I agree that we can be bold with our words in defending the truth of what we believe the Bible says and yet... love (with the love of Christ).
You said:
Alan Ballou believes in what is called “Initial Salvation, and Final Salvation.” Other Christians believe this doctrine, as well (of which you can research online). I actually held to the same view on the two aspects of salvation (of which I name differently) long before I even heard this term because the Bible has led me to that truth. I have done my own studies that we are saved first INITIALLY by God's grace without works through faith (a belief alone). But after we are saved by God's grace, we need to continue in the faith and enter a secondary aspect of salvation of which the Bible describes as the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13). This is a call of the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14 - and the gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). For God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (See: Titus 2:11-12).
Please know that I do not agree with everything Alan Ballou teaches or says. He does not understand the Trinity, and so that is where we strongly disagree. But I am praying for him on that point. But when it comes to Sanctification and the faith, Alan brings up VERSES that many Christians today ignore (Which is scary).
Update:
I had to remove these videos from Alan Ballou (that I posted before).
While I liked Alan Ballou’s videos before on Sanctification and putting away sin and they were really helpful, the problem is he is a false accuser of the brethren. In the YouTube comment section in this video here, Alan Ballou falsely accused me of several things that I are not actually true. I said that while I agreed with his viewpoint on how there are two aspects of salvation, I told him that I disagree with his view on “obeying the gospel.” I told him “obeying the gospel“ is defined for us in Romans 10 in that it is believing the gospel message. He also implied there was no free will when we come to the Lord (Which is Calvinism), and he used John 6 as an example. I explained to him why this is not Calvinism and instead of disagreeing in love and respect, he started to falsely accuse me (as if I had teachers, and I went to bible college - when that is not the case). I tried to tell him in love that he was falsely accusing me here, and he never replied back. You can see the conversation under the same username I use here (Bible Highlighter) with there being 16 replies to my comment to him. I refuse to watch somebody who falsely accuses other Christians
You said:
I had felt slightly uneasy about the position I held to in regards to “Spirit baptism replacing water baptism,” but there were verses that appeared to infer it. So I continued to believe in it. In fact, this thread was originally going to be a defense of that position. Where is it written that water baptism has ended? Where is it written that the apostles were acting in error? Where is it written in Hebrews 9:10 that it is exclusively talking about baptism in the name of Jesus and not other OT washings? So I see the Spirit baptism replacing water baptism topic as a fuzzy position to hold to at best. It is also not a coincidence that this belief is taught by Mid Acts Dispensationalists with some of them holding to Hyper Grace.
I have talked with these types a long time ago at another forum (TheologyOnline).
Here is one example of their defense of Hyper Grace:
Are You Hyper-Grace?
What is Hyper Grace?
What is hyper-grace? | GotQuestions.org
Please note that I disagree with Gotquestions view of sin and salvation. They teach that a believer is generally characterized by living a holy life, but if they backslide into a lifestyle of sin (i.e. they go prodigal), they are still saved.
Is a backsliding Christian still saved? | GotQuestions.org
Well, it is true that Mid Acts churches are not as popular and or others who hold to Spirit baptism replacing water baptism may not be a popular view among professing Christians as a whole. Perhaps he was thinking it was popular among certain Christian circles or that it was gaining in popularity. It could also he merely said that without really doing the research. But in either case, the issue of course comes down to Scripture really and not if he is correct on every point or issue.
As for your convincing others: Again, that has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says on this matter. Inferences off certain verses is not the same thing as direct evidence of Scripture. The inferences you make on certain verses involving this topic (while they sound good and could even be possibly true by a small percentage chance) can lead to...
#1. Accusing the apostles falsely.
#2. Not following a given instruction by God within the faith.
#3. Not Staying True to the Bible Alone Position.
You said:
There is nothing sneaky about it. The Bible is plain in that after you are saved by God's grace through faith, you have to be fruitful or you are going to be cut off like a branch and thrown into the fire (Reread John 15:1-11). This is not an automatic thing to be fruitful always. Believers are told in Scripture to continue in the faith, continue in grace, continue in his goodness otherwise one will be cut off just like the Jews.
Titus 3:8 they are told to be careful to maintain good works. Titus 3:8 says we should be affirming this constantly. When was the last time you heard a church affirm good works constantly? Titus 3:14 says, “And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.” Did you hear that? It says that we are to LEARN to maintain good works so that the brethren be not unfruitful. How can they be unfruitful if it is just an automatic thing?
You said:
I believe we are first saved INITIALLY by God's grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Ephesians 2:1).
I am against the position that water baptism is done for INITIAL Salvation (Which is what the Catholic church and the Church of Christ believes). Lutherans claim that baptism is for salvation, but I am not done the research to see if they believe that is the first thing you must do to be initially saved. Do I see baptism as a salvation issue? Well, I believe a person can accept Jesus as their Savior before they die in their hospital bed and be saved (without water baptism). John 1:12 makes it clear that even those who believe on his name are given power or right to become sons of God. I see that a believer can even go years in being saved without being water baptized. But I see that if a believer lives out their faith, they will in time know of the baptism issue and desire to obey the Lord as a part of the faith. If they reject baptism, it falls dangerously close in rejecting an aspect of the faith (Which can potentially lead to problems). Is it a salvation issue ultimately? I cannot say really. The Bible does not specifically say. Only God can make that determination ultimately. But a believer should not reject water baptism because it is a part of the faith and the just live by faith.
Last edited:
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Immersion in the Spirit is like, for example, being immersed in the moment, or immersed in a subject of interest, as we sometimes say.
This immersion can happen for the first time at water baptism, or it can happen for the first time through the laying on of hands. From then on the experience comes and goes, usually being closely connected to the extent that the believer (who has the initial experience) surrenders his life and seeks God and denies the distractions of this life.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
And then he went into ministry, immersed in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
I read it and I disagree.
1 Corinthians 12:13 says,
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
This verse is clear. We are all baptized into one Spirit.
I believe this would be in her Initial Salvation. She did not have to do any good work to be initially saved. But after we are saved by God’s grace, the Lord our God does require us to continue in the faith and that faith does include instructions for us to do certain things. Our faith is not like that of demons whereby we believe and there is no fruit or goodness embodying our life.
For example: Hebrews 11:7 says by faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house. Building the ark is a lot of work and yet Noah did it by faith. It was a part of Noah’s faith. But many in Christianity today have a different idea about what faith is (That is contrary to the plain reading of Scripture). In other words, there is a difference between being initially saved vs. living out your faith all the way to the end of your faith.
Romans 1:17 (Berean Standard Bible)
“For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Romans 1:17 KJB
“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
Last edited:
So @Bible Highlighter your whole theological view on The baptism of the Holy Spirit vs Water baptism has changed because of your stance on the "bible alone" theology? What about Acts 19:1-6. What does this scripture tell you. Those new believers would not need to be baptized twice if water baptism was the main objective as believers.
The strongest points I recently held to for Spirit baptism replacing water baptism was...
#1. 1 Corinthians 1:17 (along with 1 Corinthians 11:1). Paul says he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
In 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul says we are to follow his example. So if we are to follow his example, then we should say to others we come not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
#2. Luke 16:16 (in that the Law and the prophets was until John and therefore the teaching on baptism that came from John was of the Old Law).
#3. Hebrews 9:10 talks about how baptimos (Greek) (washings - English) was imposed on them until the time of reformation.
There are other points, but I think they can easily be taken down and are weak on their own.
My rebuttal of my own previous strong points on this topic:
#1. My response on 1 Corinthians 1:17: Well, in context, Paul was saying what he did in 1 Corinthians 1:17 in response to his rebuke of the Corinthians in that some of them said they were of Apollos and others said they were of Paul. Paul was saying that Christ did not originally send Paul out to just baptize only as his primary mission. Baptism is something we just simply do after we are initially first saved by God's grace through believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and or seeking forgiveness of one's sins with the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was saying that baptism alone was not his sole purpose or mission. I say this because we see Paul water baptize even the jailor and his household in the middle of the night (after the jailor first was initially saved by believing in Jesus). If we are to truly follow the example of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1, then we should water baptize like he did.
#2. My response on Luke 16:16: The apostles were told by the Lord Jesus Himself to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). The apostles took this to mean as being baptized into the name of Jesus (Because that is what we see them do). God talked to the apostles many times directly, and if they were in error on this doctrine of baptism, then it would not make any sense for God to keep remaining silent on this issue. In fact, God seemed to operate just fine in their life when they were water baptized. Granted, this was not always the case. The Spirit did come upon Cornelius and his house before they were water baptized. But the point here is we don't read anywhere in Scripture about how the apostles were acting with imperfect knowledge when it came to the baptism issue. We also do not read anywhere about how water baptism in the name of Jesus has ended. So John's water baptism vs. being baptized in the name of Jesus is different. Remember, the disciples of John at Ephesus did not know really about salvation in Jesus yet. They needed to know about Jesus as being the Savior and to believe in him. Once this happened, they were then re-baptized in the name of Jesus (because they accepted Him as their Savior) and because it is a part of the great commission in Matthew 28:19.
#3. My response on Hebrews 9:10: There is no indication that baptism in the name of Jesus was imposed on believers until the time of reformation. There is no indication that the apostles were acting in error since day one on this point with God not speaking up about it. Hebrews 9:10 would be the Old Testament washings and or rituals and it does not automatically mean it was in reference to the apostles making a mistake (When Scripture does not say that).
Last edited:
Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7 says, “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.”
So Paul helps reveal John the baptist's words to these disciples of John in what John the baptist meant when John the baptist said, “believe on him which should come after him.” Paul here in this passage reveals WHO this person is to these disciples of John (Who are at Ephesus). Paul says this is Christ Jesus (Which was a new revelation to these disciples of John). Seeing they believed in Jesus for the first time, they then were water baptized in the NAME OF the LORD JESUS.
In fact, we see in Scripture of where others are water baptized into the name of Jesus (Acts of the Apostles 2:38) (Acts of the Apostles 8:16). So in Acts 19: when Paul was about to water baptize them in the name of Jesus (laying his hands upon them), the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Nowhere do we see in Scripture of where the apostles lay hands on the apostles in the name of Jesus as a part of some Spirit baptism. Baptizing in the name of Jesus was always water baptism according to Scripture.
So while water baptism is not the point of contact of faith to be initially saved, it is something the apostles did as a part of the faith. I do believe a person can be saved on their deathbed by just believing in the name of Jesus (Just as the thief on the cross was saved without water baptism). But the point here is IF we live out our faith (after we are saved by God's grace), and we have an opportunity and or capability to be water baptized, I believe that a Christian will want to fulfill this command because the apostles did it (With God not correcting them on that issue or point). For nowhere do we read about how God rebuked the apostles for baptizing others in the name of Jesus.
I believe the Spirit came upon these disciples of John first (just like with Cornelius and his house) so as to show that we are initially saved by God's grace without works. It is by faith (a belief alone) by which we are first saved. But faith does not remain as a belief alone as we see in Hebrews 11:7 with Noah building the Ark as a part of his faith.
Side Note:
I used to think before it was odd that believers were being required to be baptized in water twice. But now that I know what I do (According to Scripture): We have to realize that water baptism of John differed from the water baptism of the great commission because one is being water baptized in the name of Jesus (in dedication and honor to Him). Baptism with John did not include this element or point. Besides, acting in faith is not always logical to us at first glance. God told the Israelites to march around Jericho seven times. Why not two times or four times? The Israelites could have reasoned among themselves that it did not make any sense to do so seven times. But they were just simply following their instructions by faith and they did not overthink what God told them to do.
Last edited:
Now, there is a tradition of men saying that rising up out of the water in our water baptism is in reference to the resurrection. This is not true. Romans 6 makes it clear that the parallel of our resurrection is walking in newness of life (walking righteously). Water baptism is symbolized as being buried with Christ. We are to die to ourselves in this life (our desires), and then walk in the likeness of His resurrection (by doing what the Lord commands of us by faith in His Word).
I have created a list of the commands in the New Testament that would apply to us and they come out to about 400 some commands.
There are 365 days in a year and so if you strived to obey each command every day and you accomplished that task, it would take you about a year and a few months to do that. So no. That does not mean there is no end to obeying God’s commands. Even death comes for our life. So there will be an end to our obedience to God in this life.
You said:For example if my eye catches a nice lady and my pulse rate goes up a few notches, I won't pluck out my naughty eye..
Right. That’s because it is a metaphor. It is a metaphor meaning to do whatever it takes to stop. It does not mean you are to literally chop of your hand or rip out your eyes. But that does not mean Jesus was not speaking literally when he told us that to look upon a woman in lust is to be cast bodily into hellfire. That part of his conversation was literal. But I have ran into many in Christianity who take that as entirely metaphor (Which is wrong).
You said:Likewise Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel, but I hate travel and would much rather watch a video from my collection ('Khartoum' arrived yesterday, yippee..
No offense, but this sounds like you have chosen a…
You just pick and choose what parts you want to believe in and or obey what caters to you and your preferences.
But that is not how things should be.
You said:
I have discussed the wine topic on numerous occasions involving the Bible and most Christians are pretty uneducated on the topic.
If you look up the word wine in a dictionary, you will notice something interesting. Look at the third definition below.
Source:
Definition of wine | Dictionary.com
Notice that in the third definition that wine can be defined as either a juice that is fermented or not fermented from various fruits (like grapes which is the most popular one we are familiar with). Fermented means it is intoxicating. Unfermented grape juice would be the regular grape juice that is non-intoxicating that you can buy in the store.
The Israelites carried strong drink for medical reasons, and when they drank it for social gatherings, they diluted it with several parts of water.
However, the wine that Jesus made as a part of His miracle was 100% grape juice.
Here is a thread at CF I created a while back if you are interested in learning more on this topic.
6 Biblical Reasons Why Jesus Made Unfermented Wine (Grape Juice).
The Bible hints that the wine in the Lord’s supper is also grape juice (i.e. unfermented wine), as well. The Lord’s supper is supposed to be a part of our weekly Sunday gathering with other believers (in each other’s homes).
Last edited:
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
Go and sin no more, didn't say come back for more instructions,
What of the unknown person casting out demons in Jesus name, on that alone speaks of not everything is by this or that as we may think. And Jesus was pretty simple with answering about the person.
What are you trying to say exactly? I am not following what you mean here. Please explain more in detail please.
Thank you, and God bless.
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
In Acts 2.42 this seems to be the pattern; believe and then be baptized (I know that Christendom often makes a hash of it........)
Do you mean that water baptism ensures a person’s salvation forever? No.
I believe a Christian is first saved by God’s grace without works in their Initial Salvation, and then…. They need to continue in the faith.
Faith starts off as a belief alone in Jesus as the Savior, and in believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, but it does not remain that way.
Baptism is only one of our sets of instructions in the faith until we live out our faith until the end. By faith Noah built the ark (Hebrews 11:7). So faith is not always just a belief alone (although God does desire us to believe certain truths in the Bible).
Check out this video here on the topic of faith.
There are lots of verses so make sure you take notes on them.
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
Is this enough to not sin?
Mark 12
30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these
Similar threads
