Holy Spirit baptism

[Invicta]

On 3/13/2023 at 12:33 AM, Jim_Alaska said:

Invicta, I won't get into a big discussion with you over your belief in a universal church, except to tell you of my personal experience. When I was saved and  baptized, I was baptized into a local church. There is "one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism"

Thanks Jim that verifies what I said. "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"

[MikeWatson1]

On 4/22/2023 at 8:33 AM, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Baptism with the Holy Spirit:

Titus 3:5-7 KJV reads, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Being "saved" is described here as "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified . . . "

The baptism (described here as "shed on") with the Holy Spirit is described occuring along with and as the means for regeneration, renewing, and justification at salvation. Though they might not know it, each individual who comes to Christ for salvation experiences this personally.

Water baptism is an outward demonstration of this reality.

As for the concepts of universal church and local churches, consider that we, here, are mostly from different local churches and yet we're connected to one another universally. As brothers and sisters in Christ, who are locally connected and built up, we're nevertheless building one another up in Christ across the globe.

John said, "I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man" (Rev. 1:12-13 KJV). He is seeing seven distinct churches with Christ in the centre, but this image of seven candlesticks is one candelabra.

Paul, is not from Corinth, yet he writes, "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" (1 Cor. 12:13 KJV). His use of the pronoun "we" appears to clearly imply that though he views the local church in Corinth distinctly, he does so with Christ's universal church in mind.

Note, he uses the pronoun "we" in his teaching to the church in Rome, a church he hadn't planted.

Weeell..

Thing is with 1 Corinthians 12... The body being described by Paul is of togetherness, unity, locality, coordinated.

Thats a local body.

 

To conclude the deal...  Paul calls the church at Corinth THE body of Christ.

So 1co12:13 would follow the same context of the local assembly.. with Paul baptised in water in ref to the church he joined and then the Corinthians obviously to Corinth

 

 

 

[SureWord]

On 4/9/2023 at 1:41 AM, MikeWatson1 said:

Well .. even putting 'local' in front of church is nonsensical, because it's inherently local by its definition.

Like saying .. meet my local wife.  As if to be contrasting with a 'universal ' wife. !! 

So with the 'body if Christ' . It's local by its definition of being a body.  

 

A body is connected.. unified..together. That's not  language you'd associate with believers scattered all over the world 

The last thing is 'there is'.... In Ephesians 4... In front of 'one body'.  ..is an addition for emphasis and doesn't need to be there.  So it can read just 'one body, one faith.. etc ' 

That means then it can be ANY body. In this case... 'at Ephesus'

Um...aren't there "local" churches scattered all over the world? Not too connected.

Also, there are no doubt unsaved people who have been baptized and joined a local church.

[MikeWatson1]

18 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Um...aren't there "local" churches scattered all over the world? Not too connected.

Also, there are no doubt unsaved people who have been baptized and joined a local church.

The connectedness in the individual local body.  

And yea there are false converts

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

18 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

Weeell..

Thing is with 1 Corinthians 12... The body being described by Paul is of togetherness, unity, locality, coordinated.

Thats a local body.

 

To conclude the deal...  Paul calls the church at Corinth THE body of Christ.

So 1co12:13 would follow the same context of the local assembly.. with Paul baptised in water in ref to the church he joined and then the Corinthians obviously to Corinth

 

 

 

As I see it, if a member of the Corinthian church relocated to the church in Rome, he wouldn't have been re-baptised into that local body, for the local "the body of Christ" he was baptized into in Corinth is also part of the entire church Jesus came to build. Christ has one body, one bride, His church.

[Jim_Alaska]

Robert, Jesus never built two churches, it is either local or universal, but cannot be both, which your posts indicate by the term, "in Corinth is also part of the entire church Jesus came to build."

You make the very same misapplication as all Universal Church people do; You cannot differentiate between the church as an institution as opposed to a church, singular. When scripture talks about more than one church, it always designates them and "churches." When scripture talks about the institution that Jesus built, it is designated and His "church" (an institution). As an institution it must be singular, but when indicating more than one it must be plural, "churches."

Someone claiming to hold a PHD should be able to make this distinction. But then, this is why you are not Baptist and instead prefer to hold to a Non-denominational position, it is very convenient.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Robert, Jesus never built two churches, it is either local or universal, but cannot be both, which your posts indicate by the term, "in Corinth is also part of the entire church Jesus came to build."

You make the very same misapplication as all Universal Church people do; You cannot differentiate between the church as an institution as opposed to a church, singular. When scripture talks about more than one church, it always designates them and "churches." When scripture talks about the institution that Jesus built, it is designated and His "church" (an institution). As an institution it must be singular, but when indicating more than one it must be plural, "churches."

Someone claiming to hold a PHD should be able to make this distinction. But then, this is why you are not Baptist and instead prefer to hold to a Non-denominational position, it is very convenient.

If you say, 'When scripture talks about more than one church, it always designates them as [sic] "churches." When scripture talks about the institution that Jesus built, it is designated as [sic] His "church" (an institution). As an institution it must be singular, but when indicating more than one it must be plural, "churches,"' haven't you just said that all "the churches" comprise the instution we call His church?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

I understand that Baptists 'have rejected the notion of a "universal Church" altogether, admitting the authority of only local organizations, individual communities of believers, and, ultimately, each individual before God. As a result, they have found themselves at odds with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and mainline denominational Protestantism' (Teaching History, Baptist Origins).

It is interesting to see how other Baptists have viewed the term church. For instance, this 1948 article on British on Irish Baptists, titled, The Baptist Doctrine of the Church, indicates that they fully embraced the idea if one holy catholic church.

Btw, in case someone points out that I didn't refute it, I don't have a PhD. I have a Doctorate in Biblical Studies.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Removed a space

[BrotherTony]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I understand that Baptists 'have rejected the notion of a "universal Church" altogether, admitting the authority of only local organizations, individual communities of believers, and, ultimately, each individual before God. As a result, they have found themselves at odds with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and mainline denominational Protestantism' (Teaching History, Baptist Origins).

It is interesting to see how other Baptists have viewed the term church. For instance, this 1948 article on British on Irish Baptists, titled, The Baptist Doctrine of the Church, indicates that they fully embraced the idea if one holy catholic church.

Btw, in case someone points out that I didn't refute it, I don't have a PhD. I have a Doctorate in Biblical Studies.

I have to disagree. Baptists aren't "protestant," nor are they "at odds" with anyone except those who propagate false doctrine or try to attribute things to them that aren't true. You've seemed to do both ever since you've been here. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

15 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I have to disagree. Baptists aren't "protestant," nor are they "at odds" with anyone except those who propagate false doctrine or try to attribute things to them that aren't true. You've seemed to do both ever since you've been here. 

Tony, I think you're reading too much into the quote I posted. I believe the "at odds" statement is only in context of Baptists rejecting the concept of a universal church.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

28 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I have to disagree. Baptists aren't "protestant," nor are they "at odds" with anyone except those who propagate false doctrine or try to attribute things to them that aren't true. You've seemed to do both ever since you've been here. 

The quote is also not saying that Baptists are Protestant anymore than its saying they're Catholic or Orthodox.

[BrotherTony]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Tony, I think you're reading too much into the quote I posted. I believe the "at odds" statement is only in context of Baptists rejecting the concept of a universal church.

Again...

3 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

The quote is also not saying that Baptists are Protestant anymore than its saying they're Catholic or Orthodox.

Again....

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

"Baptist successionism (or Baptist perpetuity) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches ...

Since the end of the 19th century the trend in academic Baptist historiography has been away from the successionist viewpoint to the view that modern day Baptists are an outgrowth of 17th-century English Separatism" - Baptist successionism.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

7 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Again...

Again....

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to help you see that this source is simply being matter-of-fact.

[BrotherTony]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to help you see that this source is simply being matter-of-fact.

I can see what the Holy Spirit leads me to see. He is the one who will guide us into all truth. I used to be in the Landmark group of Baptists years ago. I found it hard to continue in their paths since they were untenable.

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Tony, I think you're reading too much into the quote I posted. I believe the "at odds" statement is only in context of Baptists rejecting the concept of a universal church.

Not all Baptists do reject it. My father held to that belief. I didn't and still don't. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by BrotherTony