“The doctrine of baptisms” (Hebrews 6:1-2)

[John Zain]

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.

This kind of throws a monkey-wrench into the theory of only “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).
There are several theories about what Paul was talking about, which can be researched.

The following is my doctrine of baptisms …

Baptism into the church (salvation) --- Baptizer: the Holy Spirit
This does not refer to a phony salvation, which has always been quite prevalent,
i.e. merely an intellectual belief, or conversion of one’s thinking.
But this refers to being “born again (from above)” with the Holy Spirit entering the person.
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body (the church)
… and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
The Holy Spirit takes up residence INSIDE the believer … John 14:16-23, Romans 8:11,
1 Corinthians 3:16, Galatians 4:6, 2 Timothy 1:14, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:12-16.
So, I classify this baptism as the one where the Holy Spirit comes “inside” people.

Baptism in water (a symbolic demonstration of faith) --- Baptizer: man
Full-immersion baptism in water is symbolic, being the outward expression of inward faith.
Any other type of water baptism is unscriptural and just dreamed up by man.
Paul said, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
We are justified by God’s gift of grace through faith, and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Baptism with the Holy Spirit (an anointing power for ministry) --- Baptizer: Jesus Christ
John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit
(Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33).
This does not refer to salvation.
But this refers the Holy Spirit coming UPON the believer … Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-8,
Acts 2:1-4, Acts 8:14-19, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 11:15-17, Acts 19:5-6.
This baptism with the Holy Spirit comes after a person is born again (or at the same time).
So, I classify this baptism as the one where the Holy Spirit comes “upon” people.
Note: Approx. 8 times in the OT, the Spirit came UPON God's prophets as an ANOINTING to prophecy, etc.
I believe only twice did a prophet say the Spirit came INSIDE of him.
Now I ask you, wasn't it a tad difficult for them to know if the Spirit was upon them or inside of them?
IMO, only if God told them directly, would they know for sure. In those 2 cases, the prophet was mistaken.
[Muslims would love this ... a prophet mistaken! They insist that all of God's prophets were sinless.]

Baptism with fire (extreme suffering for the gospel’s sake) --- Baptizer: Jesus Christ
John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus is the One who baptizes with fire (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16).
Jesus asked His 12 disciples if they were able to be martyrs after Him:
“Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with
the baptism that I am baptized with?” (Matthew 20:22-23).
Jesus told His 12 disciples that they would be martyrs after Him:
“You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with
the baptism that I am baptized with …” (Mark 10:38-39).

All of the baptisms are glorious blessings, even the baptism with fire:
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake” (Matthew 5:10).

 

[neophyte]

John , in reference to the first paragraph of your above post Notice that John 3 mentions the new birth in the context of feminine or maternal imagery (the mother’s womb), whereas 1 Peter gives a masculine or paternal image (the "seed" of the word of God). The new birth is not water alone, nor the word alone, but the "washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:26). They should be united, not pitted against one another. In fact, Peter’s readers had been led by hearing the word to embrace new birth in baptism. Their new birth in baptism was the result of the word being implanted earlier—a spiritual "conception" in more than one sense.
Even if the images did conflict, this would not invalidate one or the other. After all, Scripture sometimes uses the same image for different aspects of divine truth. The Church is said to be built on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), and Peter in particular (Mt 16:18). The image of a lion is applied to both the Lord and the devil. There is no reason why birth imagery should not be applied to both water and the word. As it is, though, the happy complementarity of the two images—a paternal and a maternal one—powerfully brings out both aspects of the new birth.
Heb.6:2 is about instruction about baptisms [ s ] the plural indicating baptism[s ] not simply about Christian baptism but all baptisms including Jewish rites and the differences between both of them.
It is you John trying to throw a monkey wrench into the doctrine of Christian baptism ,the Holy Bible tells us that there is only 'one' baptism for all true Christians found in Eph. 4:3-6. See Matt 28: 18-20.

 

[JLB]

John , in reference to the first paragraph of your above post Notice that John 3 mentions the new birth in the context of feminine or maternal imagery (the mother’s womb), whereas 1 Peter gives a masculine or paternal image (the "seed" of the word of God). The new birth is not water alone, nor the word alone, but the "washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:26). They should be united, not pitted against one another. In fact, Peter’s readers had been led by hearing the word to embrace new birth in baptism. Their new birth in baptism was the result of the word being implanted earlier—a spiritual "conception" in more than one sense.
Even if the images did conflict, this would not invalidate one or the other. After all, Scripture sometimes uses the same image for different aspects of divine truth. The Church is said to be built on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), and Peter in particular (Mt 16:18). The image of a lion is applied to both the Lord and the devil. There is no reason why birth imagery should not be applied to both water and the word. As it is, though, the happy complementarity of the two images—a paternal and a maternal one—powerfully brings out both aspects of the new birth.
Heb.6:2 is about instruction about baptisms [ s ] the plural indicating baptism[s ] not simply about Christian baptism but all baptisms including Jewish rites and the differences between both of them.
It is you John trying to throw a monkey wrench into the doctrine of Christian baptism ,the Holy Bible tells us that there is only 'one' baptism for all true Christians found in Eph. 4:3-6. See Matt 28: 18-20.

So now it's the water and the word. Before you said water and spirit.

Which is it?

The word of God clearly shows baptism in water by John the baptist as well as the apostles.

The word also speaks of a baptism of The Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues following.


Baptism in water is about death burial and resurrection. Nothing to do with the new birth.

Born of water refers to natural child birth - for flesh gives birth to flesh. Natural water has NOTHING to do with spiritual birth!!!

A person is born again of the word or God. The Gospel message! ...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

If a person does not hear or believe the Gospel Message, yet they are "Baptized" in water do you suppose they are born again. NO!!!


The washing of water through the word has nothing to do with the new birth. It's about sanctifying and cleansing!

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Sanctify and cleanse that she should be holy with blemish!

Not born again!!! Sanctified and cleansed.


Please read and study these passages.


JLB

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

John Zain .... I am going to wing this by memory .... many years ago A (saved) Jew told me he strongly felt that the Book of Hebrews was written to religious Jews who were contemplating Christianity .... (or had recently converted to Christianity .... )

Thus the blends of (seemingly strange ) teachings ..... but if you were an observant Jew in the early days .... the book of Hebrews would make complete sense .

With that in mind .... re-read Hebrews and see if you agree .... thanks.

Everything makes sense in Hebrews that way ... otherwise (to us) it can be confusing and seemingly contradictory.

Arnie M.

ps: I beleive it was Albert Israeli who pointed that out for me .... but like I said .... it was many years ago .... I think it was on a Chuck Missler interview .... the recordings are archived but I have not had sucess finding it again. Albert explained it much better than I have ... he was a Very observant Jew who became a Christian largely based on the Book of Hebrews. It was a fantastic interview.

 

[IanLC]

Very interesting post! I may use this in some of my teaching!
Bless you and may Heaven shine upon you John Zain!

 

[John Zain]

John Zain .... I am going to wing this by memory .... many years ago A (saved) Jew told me he strongly felt that
the Book of Hebrews was written to religious Jews who were contemplating Christianity .... or had recently converted to Christianity
Thus the blends of (seemingly strange ) teachings ..... but if you were an observant Jew in the early days .... the book of Hebrews would make complete sense . With that in mind .... re-read Hebrews and see if you agree .... thanks.
Everything makes sense in Hebrews that way ... otherwise (to us) it can be confusing and seemingly contradictory.
ps: I beleive it was Albert Israeli who pointed that out for me .... but like I said .... it was many years ago .... I think it was on a Chuck Missler interview .... the recordings are archived but I have not had sucess finding it again. Albert explained it much better than I have ... he was a Very observant Jew who became a Christian largely based on the Book of Hebrews. It was a fantastic interview.

Sure, Arnie, I've heard this before ... and I don't doubt it a bit.
However, there obviously are more than one baptism spoken of in the NT.
That's the point I am trying to make ... + ... there's a problem understanding Paul's "one" in Eph 4:5.

Very interesting post! I may use this in some of my teaching!
Bless you and may Heaven shine upon you John Zain!

Thanks, I appreciate hearing from you ... especially since 99% of replies to my threads tend to be negative.
However, the Lord did call me to be an evangelist in a communist country,
so He also trained me to not give much of a rat's ass re: what others think about me period.

 

[neophyte]

John Zane, in reference to your post #3; the term you use baptisms [ s ] means other Baptisms that are not Christian i.e Jewish rites etc. . It hasn't anything to do with your explanation of your erroneous interpretation of Holy Scripture.

 

[John Zain]

John Zain, in reference to your post #3; the term you use baptisms [ s ] means other Baptisms that are not Christian i.e Jewish rites etc. . It hasn't anything to do with your explanation of your erroneous interpretation of Holy Scripture.

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.

I've heard this before, but I think it's a bogus attempt to AVOID dealing with the BAPTISMS.
Because ... SEE THE BLUE ...
This whole thing is dealing with THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

 

[neophyte]

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.

I've heard this before, but I think it's a bogus attempt to AVOID dealing with the BAPTISMS.
Because ... SEE THE BLUE ...
This whole thing is dealing with THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

This is about Heb. 6,2- "Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms, and laying on of hands, reurrection of the dead and eternal judgment [ taken from "The New American Bible ]

The instruction about baptisms [ plural ] is not simply about the 'one" Christian baptism 'alone'. but it is about the difference between it and similar Jewish rites, such as proselyte baptism, John's baptism, and the washing of the Qumran sectaries [ sects ]
'Laying on of hands':In Acts 6:6; 13,3;Tim 4,14; 5,22,2Tim 1,6 it is a means of conferring some ministry or mission in the early Christian community.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

This is about Heb. 6,2- "Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms, and laying on of hands, reurrection of the dead and eternal judgment [ taken from "The New American Bible ]

The instruction about baptisms [ plural ] is not simply about the 'one" Christian baptism 'alone'. but it is about the difference between it and similar Jewish rites, such as proselyte baptism, John's baptism, and the washing of the Qumran sectaries [ sects ]
'Laying on of hands':In Acts 6:6; 13,3;Tim 4,14; 5,22,2Tim 1,6 it is a means of conferring some ministry or mission in the early Christian community.

agreed .... you said it much better than I ...

 

[John Zain]

The instruction about baptisms [ plural ] is not simply about the 'one" Christian baptism 'alone'. but ...

That's it right there, isn't it?
The love-to-the-death BIAS comes shining through.

Other people on other forums have said that ...

OBVIOUSLY ... THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM!

And you won't hear any more from me about it.
The OP reveals everything ... but only to those who are open to CHANGE.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

That's it right there, isn't it?
The love-to-the-death BIAS comes shining through.

Other people on other forums have said that ...

OBVIOUSLY ... THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CHRISTIAN BAPTISM!

And you won't hear any more from me about it.
The OP reveals everything ... but only to those who are open to CHANGE.

I find it difficult to define exactly what point you are trying to get across.

You seem to be adamant that there are baptisms (plural) .... are you refering to .... Baptism by water .... and Baptism by Spirit ... ??

Thank you
Arnie

 

[John Zain]

I find it difficult to define exactly what point you are trying to get across.
You seem to be adamant that there are baptisms (plural) .... are you refering to .... Baptism by water .... and Baptism by Spirit ... ??

Tell you what ... I'll answer you ... IF you'll read ...
-- the OP (post #1) and comment on it
and
-- this post and comment on it:
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/16032-my-testimony-glorifies-the-lord-god-almighty/

I'd like to see where you're coming from.
P.S. where I'm coming from is in the 2 posts.
.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

John Zain - thank you for your reply .... you are asking "where I am coming from" .... fine .... my thoughts on your opening post were as follows:

You mentioned "Baptisms" (plural) as per Hebrews 6 etc .... and I wanted to point out (my opinion) that Hebrews was written to , and for , obedient observant Jews .... who were new Christians .... or contemplating Christianity .... my point being that we should be cautious using some of those verses to define our modern day (Gentile) Christian doctrine. (eg: "plural baptisms")

The Book of Hebrews has some mind bending and extremely difficult passages (to us) ..... but are straight forward to an early Jew turned Christian ....

Another opinion I have has to do with your point # 4 in your OP "Baptism with Fire" .... I see that as being specific to the 12 Apostles .... and it would be an error to apply it to ourselves .... we are the recipients of the Apostles teachings .... but not Apostles ourselves. ...... hope that makes sense.

-- this post and comment on it:
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/16032-my-testimony-glorifies-the-lord-god-almighty/.

I think you experiences are wonderful .... but I feel they are specific to you , and what the Lord has planned for your life.

So often Pentecostal Charismatic Christians tend to (boast) that they have some greater measure of The Holy Spirit than some of those other "dead" churches ..... right ..... ??

Often they grasp any scrap of biblical evidence they can find to prove "some of us are missing something" because we do not speak in tongues etc. ..... as though we are lacking some Spiritual gifts.

I feel that it is incorrect to claim evidence of tongues is required for Christians to do amazing works authored by Holy Spirit.

I feel emotionalism in Pentecostal circles is confused with Spiritualism ..... I say that because often not much else is accomplished except emotionalism ...... whereas I have seen tremendous actual documented "Works of The Holy Spirit" accomplished in the non Charismatic .... so-called "Dead churches" ....

I absolutely love the emotional side of worship and Christian life .... but I do not confuse it with manifestation of Spirit.

Jesus Christ builds his Church using promptings and circumstances provided by The Holy Spirit ..... within Pentecostal circles and without. .... It is not exclusive to those who speak tongues etc.

Jesus provided special Spiritual powers to his 12 Apostles .... that we cannot rightly make claim to ..... although it appears he uses those powerful Spiritual occurances amongs us from time to time.

Thank you and best wishes..

 

[John Zain]

Arnie,

Yes, regardless of what Hebrews 6:1-2 is speaking to, I see 4 Christian baptisms as outlined in the OP.
IMO, they are drastically different … and even the baptism with fire can easily apply to us today.
Why are you fighting Scripture?
Of course my testimony is specific to me, but if the Lord moved that way with me over a 15-year period,
it proves that the baptism with the Holy Spirit and its’ resulting spiritual gifts are alive and well today!
Satan and man have really messed up the churches … please see my new thread coming shortly.
Have you talked to very many who have received this baptism and some of the 9 spiritual gifts?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

This is not directed at anyone in particular but my observation is that many folks in the Pentecostal - Charismatic movement claim to be "Full of The Holy Spirit" ..... yet to observe their actions it appears they are mostly "Full of themselves"

Much of their time is spent trying to tell (other Christians) that they are lacking something.

I feel it is a dangerous and mis-leading error to boast of having some perceived greater measure of Spirit .... simply because a new language is spoken that no one understands , and even the speaker himself does not understand.

Most of our modern day Church scandals and embarrassments come from these groups.

Something doesn't add up here.

Yet the boasting continues.

 

[John Zain]

This is not directed at anyone in particular but my observation is that many folks in the Pentecostal - Charismatic movement
claim to be "Full of The Holy Spirit" ..... yet to observe their actions it appears they are mostly "Full of themselves"
Much of their time is spent trying to tell (other Christians) that they are lacking something.
I feel it is a dangerous and mis-leading error to boast of having some perceived greater measure of Spirit
.... simply because a new language is spoken that no one understands , and even the speaker himself does not understand.
Most of our modern day Church scandals and embarrassments come from these groups.
Something doesn't add up here. Yet the boasting continues.

Good post ... and I mostly agree. Hey, we're finally on the same page.

Please don't forget that Satan and man, both exercising their God-given free will,
can be a very potent combo against the work of the Lord.

God's Plan for man was for him to work together with God in all things on earth.
When man doesn't go along with this, God has a problem ... and so do we!
And then there's Satan, the most gifted liar and deceiver in the history of the world!
Good Luck!

 

[neophyte]

Good post ... and I mostly agree. Hey, we're finally on the same page.

Please don't forget that Satan and man, both exercising their God-given free will,
can be a very potent combo against the work of the Lord.

God's Plan for man was for him to work together with God in all things on earth.
When man doesn't go along with this, God has a problem ... and so do we!
And then there's Satan, the most gifted liar and deceiver in the history of the world!
Good Luck!

I believe what the Holy Bible tells us, and that is this ; that the Church [,meaning Christ's One True Apostolic Church] contains all truth .[ 1 Tim 3:14] That very same Church received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, no other future church ever received the Holy Spirit. [ 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14. Christ protects His Apostolic/Catholic Church from complete apostasy [ Matt. 16:18; 20: 20 ]. The Church meaning Christ's Apostolic/Catholic Church , Catholic because it is the only Apostolic Church today along with EOC [ s ] that is formed on the apostles.

 

[Biblican]

There are certain criteria for salvation that are, without controversy, absolute. They are scriptural, cannot be argued, and for the most part, are unfortunately not accepted by almost every Christian denomination. The same can be said for most of the biblical doctrine ...​

People must understand that Romans 10:9 is a claim made by Christians as they have already been saved and that they continually claim in their walk. We also must realize that believing, like loving, is an action to be defined by the "doing" of Gods Word ...​

First, we know that in order to be saved, one must repent:​

Matt. 9:13 -"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."​

Mark 1:15 "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."​

Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." My favorite enforcement ...​

Secondly, Jesus said that in order to be saved (under the New Covenant or New Testament), one has to be baptized:​

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."​

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." People have tried to use this Scripture to say that since Jesus did not emphasize baptism a second time means they do not need to be baptized. I do not understand where that total lack of logic comes from, but is a down right lie straight from Hell!​

Third, we know that God's children must be filled with his Spirit, the Holy Ghost):​

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."​

John 14:26 -"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."​

Acts 2:38 meets this criteria. At that time, the Apostle Peter is preaching the first Christian sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Weeks) in response to the question of what the attendees should do to make ammends for what they had done to Jesus Christ. The realized that they had sinned against God, and needed to know what had to be done to make things right. They asked "Peter and the rest of the apostles" what to do, and Peter responded this way:​

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."​

He went on to tell them in verse 40 to "save themselves." If you read Acts 2:38-40 together, it becomes apparent that these were instructions for any and all sinners who wished to be saved:​

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."​

Read more:http://biblicanguild.proboards.com/​

 

[John Zain]

There are certain criteria for salvation that are, without controversy, absolute. ​

They are scriptural, cannot be argued, ​

Second ... ​

Jesus said that in order to be saved (under the New Covenant or New Testament), one has to be baptized:​

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, ​

he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."​

Third, we know that God's children must be filled with his Spirit, the Holy Ghost):​

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, ​

he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."​

John 14:26 -"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."​

​

Sorry, I'd say you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, but you are filled with strong opinions.
Simple salvation has nothing to do with being "filled", i.e. having the Spirit come "in" is not being filled.
"Filled" has to do with the baptism with the Holy Spirit (not salvation).

Re: salvation ... no one knows for sure what the criteria is.
Let's look at some possibilities:
1 -- election, and it's a guaranteed done deal
2 -- election plus co-operating with being sanctified
3 -- free will choice
4 -- free will choice plus co-operating with being sanctified
Note that in 2 and 4, the person can be disqualified later.

Most denominations agree that water baptism is highly recommended, but not required.
E.G. Paul said he went out to preach the gospel, not to baptize.
Your John 3:5 has about 8 different interpretations, and most scholars say it does not mean baptism.
Also, it says nothing about being "filled".
You meant to quote John 14:17 where Jesus promised the Spirit will be "in" believers.