Holy Spirit baptism

[BrotherTony]

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

The command was given to the apostles, but the commission explicity states that the were to teach others to do whatsoever they were commanded to do. That includes baptism.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matt. 28:19-20).

That's understood, and nowhere have I stated otherwise. As they were commanded to teach others to do so, they did. I truly believe that the power of the people to baptize has been usurped by the corporate church, ie, the power taken by the leadership. I liked most of what I read in "The New Reformation: Unfinished Business, Returning The Ministry To The People Of God," by Greg Ogden. I have been in churches where people have been baptized by those who led them to the Lord...they were baptized in a swimming pool, river, lake, or somewhere with sufficient water, who have come to church and requested membership, the one baptizing them giving an account of the baptism and the one who was baptized giving an account of his/her salvation to the congregation. They were accepted without question. I've seen this in at least two Baptist churches, four Cowboy Churches, and two inter-denominational churches. These people are thriving and growing, as are the churches they are in. I'm not saying I 100% agree with the process, but with the command given by Christ, I find it a feasible position.  

15 hours 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've already stated where I stand on the remnant of believers...my view isn't Landmarkism. Nor is it that we came from the Protestant Reformation. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet God's own Word in Hebrews 12:22-23 makes it quite distinct, saying, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an inumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect . . . ."  I myself would contend that wherein God's own Word makes something precise and specific, we ought not make it general.  By means of this Biblical precision we are able to discern that the "universal heavenly church" does NOT exist and is NOT assembled on the earth.  Members thereof do indeed exist on the earth, but the entity itself exists and is assembled ONLY in heaven.  Indeed, just as the Old Testament tabernacle/temple was intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly temple, even so the local church institution is intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly church.  Thus any attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth, or to disregard the Biblical local church structure that the Lord our God DID institute for the earth, is contrary to Biblical truth.  

I agree we should not 'attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth.' I also believe that each church has its own internal authority structure.

Nevertheless, I see the universal church and the church mentioned in Hebrews, "the heavenly Jerusalem," as one and the same. I believe that passage simply expands on what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6. See here:

"[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . . to the spirits of just men made perfect . . ."

Similarly, "John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:2-10).

In this way, the prayer that God's "kingdom come . . . in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10) is continually being answered. As beings of the heavenly Jerusalem, "we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20), sent to establish His kingdom among the inhabitants of the earth.

Joining this to the forum's topic, I believe the Spirit that believers are baptized with is illustrated in the final vision of Revelation. He is seen as a river running in "it," the city, coming from God, and Jesus. John writes, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:1-2).

Of the city, John says, "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). 

"For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it - They are present in all parts of it in their glory; they fill it with light; and the splendor of their presence may be said to be the temple" - Barnes.

As Jesus said, "that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21).

Of this, Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16).

And, Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38).

Edited May 3 by Dr. Robert S. Morley

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

That's understood, and nowhere have I stated otherwise. As they were commanded to teach others to do so, they did. I truly believe that the power of the people to baptize has been usurped by the corporate church, ie, the power taken by the leadership. I liked most of what I read in "The New Reformation: Unfinished Business, Returning The Ministry To The People Of God," by Greg Ogden. I have been in churches where people have been baptized by those who led them to the Lord...they were baptized in a swimming pool, river, lake, or somewhere with sufficient water, who have come to church and requested membership, the one baptizing them giving an account of the baptism and the one who was baptized giving an account of his/her salvation to the congregation. They were accepted without question. I've seen this in at least two Baptist churches, four Cowboy Churches, and two inter-denominational churches. These people are thriving and growing, as are the churches they are in. I'm not saying I 100% agree with the process, but with the command given by Christ, I find it a feasible position.  

I've already stated where I stand on the remnant of believers...my view isn't Landmarkism. Nor is it that we came from the Protestant Reformation. 

You appeared to say "otherwise" when you said, regarding my comments on Matt. 28:19, that it was a command given to the Apostles and that I should try again. 

Btw, I appreciate hearing the witness of thriving churches. 

As for Baptist origins, learning of the three Baptist views has allowed me to better see what you wrote. You were very clear. I was too quick to make it an option between Landmarkism and believers from 17th century Protestantism when there was a third option, as well a blend of your view with 17th century Protestants.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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

I agree we should not 'attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth.' I also believe that each church has its own internal authority structure.

Nevertheless, I see the universal church and the church mentioned in Hebrews, "the heavenly Jerusalem," as one and the same. I believe that passage simply expands on what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6. See here:

"[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . . to the spirits of just men made perfect . . ."

Similarly, "John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:2-10).

In this way, the prayer that God's "kingdom come . . . in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10) is continually being answered. As beings of the heavenly Jerusalem, "we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20), sent to establish His kingdom among the inhabitants of the earth.

Joining this to the forum's topic, I believe the Spirit that believers are baptized with is illustrated in the final vision of Revelation. He is seen as a river running in "it," the city, coming from God, and Jesus. John writes, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:1-2).

Of the city, John says, "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). 

"For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it - They are present in all parts of it in their glory; they fill it with light; and the splendor of their presence may be said to be the temple" - Barnes.

As Jesus said, "that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21).

Of this, Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16).

And, Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38).

I fully agree that Hebrews 12:22-23 & Ephesians 2:6 correspond to one another.  Indeed, I believe that Ephesians 2:6 helps to explain how the Church of the First Born in heaven can be a local assembly (in one location - in heaven), yet also include all New Testament believers who are still alive on the earth -- because the Lord our God spiritually sees all of us as presently seated in HEAVENLY places in Christ.  Furthermore, both passages precisely specify that these truths are heavenly, in heavenly places (not on the earth).

Even so, I fully disagree with your allegorical usages of the passages in the Book of the Revelation.  The prophetic utterance concerning the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven has NOT yet occurred, but is yet to come after the event of the Great White Throne Judgment, which will occur after the end of this first creation through divine fire.  We definitely part company and walk with significant division over the manner in which you handle the Book of the Revelation (which seems to be a "go-to" doctrinal focus for you, as per your primary involvement as you first joined the forum).

[BrotherTony]

20 hours 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.

"Matter of fact" or not, they're wrong. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I fully agree that Hebrews 12:22-23 & Ephesians 2:6 correspond to one another.  Indeed, I believe that Ephesians 2:6 helps to explain how the Church of the First Born in heaven can be a local assembly (in one location - in heaven), yet also include all New Testament believers who are still alive on the earth -- because the Lord our God spiritually sees all of us as presently seated in HEAVENLY places in Christ.  Furthermore, both passages precisely specify that these truths are heavenly, in heavenly places (not on the earth).

Even so, I fully disagree with your allegorical usages of the passages in the Book of the Revelation.  The prophetic utterance concerning the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven has NOT yet occurred, but is yet to come after the event of the Great White Throne Judgment, which will occur after the end of this first creation through divine fire.  We definitely part company and walk with significant division over the manner in which you handle the Book of the Revelation (which seems to be a "go-to" doctrinal focus for you, as per your primary involvement as you first joined the forum).

I hope readers see how the Scriptures correlate, even if from a perspective outside of their own. They can decide to disagree with my Amillennial approach or not. Concerning Amillennialism, The Baptist Messenger has an article, Exploring the Book of Revelation, which reads:

Interpreting the book of Revelation from an amillennial perspective has a long history in the Church and, in fact, has been the predominant eschatological position of Christianity since the time of Augustine (though it was not called “amillennialism” until more recent times).

It is also a position many Baptists have embraced [underlining added], including Hershey Davis, W. T. Conner, Herschel Hobbs, Edward McDowell, H. E. Dana, Ray Summers and James Leo Garrett. Indeed, some have claimed it was the dominant view of Southwestern Seminary from the 1930s–1990s. Even John Walvoord (a dispensational premillennialist) admits, “The weight of organized Christianity has largely been on the side of amillennialism” (Millennial Kingdom, 61).

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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

Concerning Amillennialism, The Baptist Messenger has an article, Exploring the Book of Revelation, which reads:

Interpreting the book of Revelation from an amillennial perspective has a long history in the Church and, in fact, has been the predominant eschatological position of Christianity since the time of Augustine (though it was not called “amillennialism” until more recent times).

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

[MikeWatson1]

12 hours 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. 

Its too hard to prove an unbroken line of churches from the apostles till now.  It may exist.. (and should)... But people being killed in these churches.. the people themselves not recording much of their own history and the hiding from persecution make it a fruitless exercise to fully prove.

But... God's churches do have distinctive characteristics that is seen in the first NT churches.  

 

So a church now that is solid on the Bible. .. that has those characteristics.. that does have connection to churches in the past like them.. would have the authority to baptise.

If a church carries the same characteristics of the NT churches.. it's most likely got the authority.  Because they would have got their doctrine from the same source. 

I mean.. you get a charismatic church that believed salvation can be undone.. you gonna trust their leaders to baptise and have it right?  

Therefore not all churches have the authority.

 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

Regardless of Augustine, amillennialism has been embraced by good Baptists who have tested it and found it biblical.

[BrotherTony]

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

Regardless of Augustine, amillennialism has been embraced by good Baptists who have tested it and found it biblical.

Yet, a majority don't. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

I agree. That's why I am delighted that amillennialism gets considered in an environment in which dispensational premillennialism has been popularized. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

7 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

Its too hard to prove an unbroken line of churches from the apostles till now.  It may exist.. (and should)... But people being killed in these churches.. the people themselves not recording much of their own history and the hiding from persecution make it a fruitless exercise to fully prove.

But... God's churches do have distinctive characteristics that is seen in the first NT churches.  

 

So a church now that is solid on the Bible. .. that has those characteristics.. that does have connection to churches in the past like them.. would have the authority to baptise.

If a church carries the same characteristics of the NT churches.. it's most likely got the authority.  Because they would have got their doctrine from the same source. 

I mean.. you get a charismatic church that believed salvation can be undone.. you gonna trust their leaders to baptise and have it right?  

Therefore not all churches have the authority.

 

As I see it, the surmusing around the adequate transfer of authority leaves way too much uncertainty.

More importantly, biblically, God has left us with a more certain evidence and authority. His word alone, especially Matthew 28:19-20, gives the authority. Not a church.

[Jim_Alaska]

Matthew 28:16 (KJV) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This authority was not given to just anyone, it was given to His eleven disciples. These eleven comprised the first church, the church that Jesus built. As such, this Scripture shows that Jesus delegated His authority to His church.

(and this church was local, by-the-way)

Authority has a source and in this case that source is Jesus Himself; God in the flesh.

[TheGloryLand]

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

As I see it, the surmusing around the adequate transfer of authority leaves way too much uncertainty.

More importantly, biblically, God has left us with a more certain evidence and authority. His word alone, especially Matthew 28:19-20, gives the authority. Not a church.

 

Carry on my friends 

Edited May 4 by TheGloryLand

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Matthew 28:16 (KJV) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This authority was not given to just anyone, it was given to His eleven disciples. These eleven comprised the first church, the church that Jesus built. As such, this Scripture shows that Jesus delegated His authority to His church.

(and this church was local, by-the-way)

Authority has a source and in this case that source is Jesus Himself; God in the flesh.

The Catholics also claim authority was given to the church, which the Reformation addressed with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

God's word always precedes the church in authority. The church is subservient to God's word and accomplishes His will by obeying His word. Furthermore, we are fallible, but His word is perfect.

Catholics believe they have the authority to add doctrine by their belief. Similarly, the authority to Baptize does not lie with successionism, or the like. The logic of this is clearly false. For, according to Matthew 28:19-20, all believers are taught to baptize others because it's one of the many things Jesus commaned the eleven to do. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

If an unbeliever were to find a Bible and become a believer, it matters not who Baptizes the person, for the Spirit has already Baptized the individual, but that is it done by a believer. For the word of God the apostles taught gives the authority to baptize to all believers, and not the fact that they were a church authorized to baptize.

Edited May 4 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added "Similarly" and "authorized to baptize"

[Jim_Alaska]

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

I apologize for not using the KJV. It was honestly just a quick cut and paste of a passage. I had nothing to gain using it. Thanks for the warning

Referencing the Catholic Church's error concerning authority was to help you see yours. The authority to baptize is strictly in who Jesus is and the command itself. The command was given to the apostles as individuals, despite their church capacity.

This is borne out in the account where Peter, visiting Joppa, commands the believing household of Cornelius be baptized (Acts 10:47-48).

This is especially evident in how converts understood the command. For Philip (not the apostle) baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) after meeting him in the desert and then left him.

A careful study shows that the command given by Jesus to the eleven is to them as individuals in the church to reach individuals everywhere and for them to do the same. Acts bears witness to it being carried out that way.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matt. 28:19-20).

Most commands given in a group context are intended for the individuals in the group to be obedient to. The command to baptize is no different.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

4 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Robert, I care not what the Catholica church teaches. I am a Baptist. The great commission and the authority to baptize was given to the Apostles, who incidentally were the first members of the first church. Secessionism has nothing to do with it and I am not in agreement with it either. 

What is it that you cannot understand regarding them being the members of the first church? The authority to baptize was given to them in church capacity, not as individuals.

Once again you quote scripture and refuse to abide by board rules by quoting from something other than the KJV. You have been told about this more than once. Because of this I am issuing you a warning. Also, just in case you have not read the rules, which is obvious, I want to tell you up front that our board holds to a "three strikes and your out" position. What that means in plain language is simply that if you are issued three warnings you will be banned. Sorry but that is the board rule.

You might have made a typo, because I am not referring to "secessionism," which refers to a group leaving a nation to form another nation, which some Baptists in America supported in the period around the Civil War (Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words, Yes, the Civil War Was About Slavery, Bruce Gourley).

Successionism on the other hand comes from the word succession which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a follows:

a :the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b :the right of a person or line to succeed
c :the line having such a right

"Baptist successionism (or Baptist perpetuity) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The theory postulates an unbroken lineage of churches . . ." (Baptist successionism, Wiki).

Regardless of that explanation, the origin of churches matters not when it comes to obeying to the command to baptize.

I would suggest that Jesus’s response to John, regarding John's intolerance of an outsider to their group driving out demons, can be applied to baptism too.

"John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark 9:38-40). 

[BrotherTony]

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

You might have made a typo, because I am not referring to "secessionism," which refers to a group leaving a nation to form another nation, which some Baptists in America supported in the period around the Civil War (Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words, Yes, the Civil War Was About Slavery, Bruce Gourley).

Successionism on the other hand comes from the word succession which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a follows:

a :the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b :the right of a person or line to succeed
c :the line having such a right

"Baptist successionism (or Baptist perpetuity) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The theory postulates an unbroken lineage of churches . . ." (Baptist successionism, Wiki).

Regardless of that explanation, the origin of churches matters not when it comes to obeying to the command to baptize.

I would suggest that Jesus’s response to John, regarding John's intolerance of an outsider to their group driving out demons, can be applied to baptism too.

"John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark 9:38-40). 

All of this bloviation over a typo? Really? I think just from reading the previous posts we all know what is being spoken of. Just more proof that "knowledge puffeth up." UGH!