Holy Spirit baptism

[Jim_Alaska]

1 hour 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).

That article presumes to teach Baptist origin from a false starting point. I find it ludicrous for any Bible teacher to presume to teach about any subject without proper knowledge of the subject itself. This supposed teacher starts with "supposed" Baptists in England in the sixteenth century. It then cites Baptists coming out of the Separatist Movement of that time. The truth of the matter is that there were Baptists sixteen hundred years before this movement.  That my friend makes The Separatists and those that they came out of, sixteen hundred years too late to be the church that Jesus built, or in other words too late to be a Baptist church.

For sixteen hundred years there was no Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Church, so there was nothing to be at odds with. The truth is quite the opposite, these (supposed) churches found themselves at odds with Baptist Churches simply because they were late comers in a world that already consisted of true New Testament Baptist Churches. This is the "first in time" concept (my words). First in time shows: Baptists, beginning with John the Baptist; Catholic, during the first three hundred years; Roman Catholic, beginning in the fourth century and finally the Reformation of 1560. These latecomers all purposed to create their own "brand" of Christianity, while adamantly rejecting the true churches already in existence.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

6 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

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.

Out of interest, was it Landmarkism itself that you found untenable? And, if so, do you see the origin of  the Baptists being 17th-century English Separatists (who were Protestants)?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

30 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

That article presumes to teach Baptist origin from a false starting point. I find it ludicrous for any Bible teacher to presume to teach about any subject without proper knowledge of the subject itself. This supposed teacher starts with "supposed" Baptists in England in the sixteenth century. It then cites Baptists coming out of the Separatist Movement of that time. The truth of the matter is that there were Baptists sixteen hundred years before this movement.  That my friend makes The Separatists and those that they came out of, sixteen hundred years too late to be the church that Jesus built, or in other words too late to be a Baptist church.

For sixteen hundred years there was no Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Church, so there was nothing to be at odds with. The truth is quite the opposite, these (supposed) churches found themselves at odds with Baptist Churches simply because they were late comers in a world that already consisted of true New Testament Baptist Churches. This is the "first in time" concept (my words). First in time shows: Baptists, beginning with John the Baptist; Catholic, during the first three hundred years; Roman Catholic, beginning in the fourth century and finally the Reformation of 1560. These latecomers all purposed to create their own "brand" of Christianity, while adamantly rejecting the true churches already in existence.

I see that your view is not universally accepted among Baptists.

"In 1859, the Southern Baptist Convention approved several resolutions disapproving of Landmarkism, which led to adherents gradually withdrawing from the Southern Baptist Convention "to form their own churches and associations and create an independent Landmark Baptist tradition"' - Landmarkism

[BrotherTony]

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

Out of interest, was it Landmarkism itself that you found untenable? And, if so, do you see the origin of  the Baptists being 17th-century English Separatists (who were Protestants)?

I don't believe that we were primarily brought about by all of these other denominations who were protestant...ie.. using the booklet "The Trail of Blood" as a guidebook right next to the Bible. It made me feel like there was a touch of Mormonism (in their understanding of their history) and blindly following and swallowing the "Kool aid." I see the origin of the Baptists in a small remnant outside of these other denominations. Granted, these other denominations may have contributed to the makeup of what is now known as the Baptist churches, but not the root of the denomination.

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

I see that your view is not universally accepted among Baptists.

"In 1859, the Southern Baptist Convention approved several resolutions disapproving of Landmarkism, which led to adherents gradually withdrawing from the Southern Baptist Convention "to form their own churches and associations and create an independent Landmark Baptist tradition"' - Landmarkism

Many SBC churches don't hold to that position. Some are indeed very Landmarkish in their stance. Besides, 1859 was nearly two centuries ago.

[Jim_Alaska]

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

I see that your view is not universally accepted among Baptists.

That is simply because many modern day Baptists have no clue as to their roots. This is in part brought about by people blindly accepting articles like the ones you linked to. This is why I teach what I teach regarding Baptist history. 2 Timothy 2:2 (KJV) And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

What I posted comes from actual history, not someone's opinion, or from someone ignorantly starting to teach Baptist history from a point sixteen hundred years after the actual fact. Perhaps their "brand" of Baptist history began in the times they quoted, but the fact is that true New Testament Baptist churches were in existence long before that. The first church at Jerusalem is solid testimony to this fact.

[MikeWatson1]

9 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

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.

Only gotta be baptised once.. and then you can join one of God's churches.  But the authority to baptise is from one of those churches.. therefore it is in ref to that church.

[TheGloryLand]

I haven’t seen a person get baptized in person, in a couple years. Sad, also when there were baptisms, members would not even stay to witness. Baptisms, have been placed on the back burner, where I have attended. Hopefully, not we’re you are attending.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

8 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't believe that we were primarily brought about by all of these other denominations who were protestant...ie.. using the booklet "The Trail of Blood" as a guidebook right next to the Bible. It made me feel like there was a touch of Mormonism (in their understanding of their history) and blindly following and swallowing the "Kool aid." I see the origin of the Baptists in a small remnant outside of these other denominations. Granted, these other denominations may have contributed to the makeup of what is now known as the Baptist churches, but not the root of the denomination.

Many SBC churches don't hold to that position. Some are indeed very Landmarkish in their stance. Besides, 1859 was nearly two centuries ago.

Thanks, Tony. The origins are very interesting to consider.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

That is simply because many modern day Baptists have no clue as to their roots. This is in part brought about by people blindly accepting articles like the ones you linked to. This is why I teach what I teach regarding Baptist history. 2 Timothy 2:2 (KJV) And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

What I posted comes from actual history, not someone's opinion, or from someone ignorantly starting to teach Baptist history from a point sixteen hundred years after the actual fact. Perhaps their "brand" of Baptist history began in the times they quoted, but the fact is that true New Testament Baptist churches were in existence long before that. The first church at Jerusalem is solid testimony to this fact.

Thanks, Jim. 

Out of interest, how would you personally know if the particular church you attended came out of 17th century Protestantism or Jerusalem?

I see that three main views of origin exist among Baptists:

1) The Succession-Continuity-Perpetuity View,

2) The Spiritual Kinship View,

3) The English Separatist View

(Baptist Because, The Problem of Baptist Succession).

One another note, with regard to the concept of local churches and a universal church, see how the word "also" in Ephesians 2:19-22 indicates Paul connecting the local Ephesian church to the universal church Christ is building.

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit".

Most importantly, if an individual, for example, picks up a tract with the good news and believes, he is immediately built into Christ's church, the temple of God, even before he finds a local church. After all, believers find their roots in the message passed on through the early church in Jerusalem, regardless of whether or nor a chain of actual churches exist.

Regardless, we ought not build our faith on such a foundation, but solely upon "this rock" of proffession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," on which Jesus said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:16-18). This sole foundation is explained elsewhere more expansively as "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20).

Edited May 3, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added transition words. Changed "existed" to "exist."

[BrotherTony]

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

Thanks, Jim. 

Out of interest, how would you personally know if the particular church you attended came out of 17th century Protestantism or Jerusalem?

I see that three main views of origin exist among Baptists:

1) The Succession-Continuity-Perpetuity View,

2) The Spiritual Kinship View,

3) The English Separatist View

(Baptist Because, The Problem of Baptist Succession).

One another note, with regard to the concept of local churches and a universal church, see how the word "also" in Ephesians 2:19-22 indicates Paul connecting the local Ephesian church to the universal church Christ is building.

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit".

Most importantly, if an individual, for example, picks up a tract with the good news and believes, he is immediately built into Christ's church, the temple of God, even before he finds a local church. After all, believers find their roots in the message passed on through the early church in Jerusalem, regardless of whether or nor a chain of actual churches exist.

Regardless, we ought not build our faith on such a foundation, but solely upon "this rock" of proffession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," on which Jesus said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:16-18). This sole foundation is explained elsewhere more expansively as "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20).

??????? All this is based on YOUR opinion...again...as to what Baptists believe...that's really strange considering you're not a Baptist (you say you've got no denomination) and you're telling us what we allegedly believe. I think I already pointed out the fallacy of your viewpoint before. How would YOU  know if the churches that Jim has attended came out of succession or not? It's sort of irrelevant and not worth going through since we're supposed to be redeeming the time, seeking to lead souls to the Lord, and building his kingdom.  More bloviating and assumption on your part. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

11 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

Only gotta be baptised once.. and then you can join one of God's churches.  But the authority to baptise is from one of those churches.. therefore it is in ref to that church.

No one can know for certain whether or not a local Baptist church is part of an unbroken succession of churches with the authority to baptise.

The authority to baptise is found in God's word alone. It was given to believers to practice and to teach to others among all the things Jesus commaned (Matt. 28:19).

Baptism is a command to be followed regardless of the existance of any local church (Acts 8:26-40, 16:11-15). Missionaries especially understand this.

The need for, and belief in, successionism that some Baptists have seems oddly akin to the need for, and belief in, papal successionism that the Catholics have. Both are an unbiblical basis for authority and unnecessary. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

30 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

??????? All this is based on YOUR opinion...again...as to what Baptists believe...that's really strange considering you're not a Baptist (you say you've got no denomination) and you're telling us what we allegedly believe. I think I already pointed out the fallacy of your viewpoint before. How would YOU  know if the churches that Jim has attended came out of succession or not? It's sort of irrelevant and not worth going through since we're supposed to be redeeming the time, seeking to lead souls to the Lord, and building his kingdom.  More bloviating and assumption on your part. 

I was referencing a Baptist study. It's not my opinion.

I was asking Jim a question about something he believes is important. Our beliefs concerning origin and authority can get in the way of the simplicity of the gospel message.

[TheGloryLand]

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

No one can know for certain whether or not a local Baptist church is part of an unbroken succession of churches with the authority to baptise.

The authority to baptise is found in God's word alone. It was given to believers to practice and to teach to others among all the things Jesus commaned (Matt. 28:19).

Baptism is a command to be followed regardless of the existance of any local church (Acts 8:26-40, 16:11-15). Missionaries especially understand this.

The need for, and belief in, successionism that some Baptists have seems oddly akin to the need for, and belief in, papal successionism that the Catholics have. Both are an unbiblical basis for authority and unnecessary. 

The Bible Dictionary Man, striking again. I’m glad John,  was a Baptist not a Baptise.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Hmmm.  This thread discussion has moved some distance from the original subject of "Holy Spirit baptism."

Concerning "Holy Spirit baptism," the following questions must be considered:

1.  Does God's Word at all teach a doctrine of "Holy Spirit baptism"?
2.  If it does, when does it teach that such a baptism occurred or occurs (i.e. fulfilled at Pentecost or for all believers)?
3.  If it is for all believers, when does it occur for all believers; and what does it accomplish for them?
4.  Specifically, what baptism is taught in Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27?

As for myself, I was raised on "local church only" doctrine and defended that position for many years.  However, due to certain matters of personal Bible study, I no longer hold strictly to that position.  I now hold to what I might call a "local church only on the earth" position AND a "universal heavenly church" position (which is NOT precisely the same the common "universal church" position, and which does actually retain the "local" aspect in the Greek word "ecclesia.")

Concerning "Baptist origins," I would hold to an "anabaptist heritage" position (although NOT an "unbroken succession" position), wherein the heritage of doctrine is more important than a succession of title, name, or institution.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

27 minutes ago, TheGloryLand said:

The Bible Dictionary Man, striking again. I’m glad John,  was a Baptist not a Baptise.

My roots are British English, hence my use of baptise and not baptize.  I hope you realise now. Oops! There I go again .