The Water Baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13

[TomL]

TomL said:
And then of course we have your confession that the baptism with water and with the holy ghost is inseparable

yet another inconsistency

There was no water baptism in Acts 2:1-4

That is not inconsistent with anything. Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, John 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21 and other passages all state that baptism (in water) in addition to the action of the Spirit are necessary to receive salvation.

That nothing more than bald denial

There was no inseparable union between water baptism and the baptism en the Spirit here


Acts 2:1–4 (LEB) — 1 And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in the same place. 2 And suddenly a sound like a violent rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues like fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them ability to speak out.

you are in error

BTW they were filled with the Spirit - that is indwelling and another hole in your position

end pt6

 

[TomL]

You have improperly defined "baptism 'en' the Spirit". Baptism "en" the Spirit does not include receiving miraculous empowerment of the Spirit (although that can be one of the gifts which He gives to those who have been baptized "en" the Spirit). Baptism "en" the Spirit is the same as salvation, the indwelling of the Spirit, being reborn of the Spirit, being "in Christ". Baptism "en" the Spirit and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit are not mutually inclusive.

You have failed to show any such thing.

looking at your affirmation however

Acts 11:15–17 (LEB) — 15 And as I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as also on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as also to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?”

You just confessed the gentiles were saved before water baptism

Your position is in tatters

end pt7

 

[TomL]

Their hearts were cleansed when they demonstrated their faith in obedience to the Gospel. They were not cleansed by the Spirit falling on them in miraculous power.

The text

Acts 15:7–9 (LEB) — 7 And after there was much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Men and brothers, you know that in the early days God chose among you through my mouth that the Gentiles should hear the message of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us. 9 And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

contains not a word about water baptism

The Spirit testified they were believers - had faith by giving them the spirit

And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

not by water baptism which does not appear in the text

Your position is contrary to scripture here

end pt8

 

[TomL]

Excursion on the absurd

That is your interpretation colored by your preconception. It is not TRUTH! Speaking in tongues is NOT evidence of salvation/indwelling of the Spirit. Balaam's donkey is evidence that the gift of tongues can be given to the unsaved (donkeys having no soul to save in the first place).

When you can show it is stated the donkey received or was given the spirit, your citation might have some value. As such is never stated anywhere in scripture, your citing of the donkey's experience is absurd.

BTW it is never stated the donkey had the gift of tongues either

 

[Doug Brents]

Um

Do you really want to claim

Acts 2:38 (LEB) — 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

the gift of the holy spirit does not include the indwelling

You don't read very clearly, or you are only reading what you want to hear.
As I said earlier, those you have been baptized into Christ receive the indwelling automatically, so that is naturally included in this verse. But this passage is also indicating that miraculous empowerment was also available to those Jews to whom Peter was speaking.

The same gift was seen here

Acts 10:45–46 (LEB) — 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said,

This is speaking only of the miraculous empowerment (tongues and praise) which could be seen, not the indwelling which cannot be seen.

Note the Spirit was received

John 7:38–39 (LEB) — 38 the one who believes in me. Just as the scripture said, ‘Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 (Now he said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were about to receive. For the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)

speaking of the indwelling

Yes, the Spirit was received. But what part of the Spirit, what manifestation of His working, was received in each of the cases above? In some, it was tongues and praise (miraculous empowerment); in some it was the indwelling; in some it was both. You have to consider the context of each event, and consider the truths found in 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:5, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, Mark 16:16, Matt 28:19, Acts 8:36, Acts 22:16 and others that show that salvation is received in water baptism, and never without water baptism.

 

[TomL]

Um

Do you really want to claim

Acts 2:38 (LEB) — 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

the gift of the holy spirit does not include the indwelling

Doug brent

You don't read very clearly, or you are only reading what you want to hear.
As I said earlier, those you have been baptized into Christ receive the indwelling automatically, so that is naturally included in this verse. But this passage is also indicating that miraculous empowerment was also available to those Jews to whom Peter was speaking.

There should've been a question mark there

For your position is the gift of the Holy does speak of the indwelling

And Mine as well

if you read all my post you will see that

and I use the fact that the gift of the spirit references the indwelling of the spirit when I stated

Acts 10:44–47 (LEB) — 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!”

So the gentiles received the gift of the spirit as had the believers from the circumcision.

the gift of the spirit being the reception of the spirit.

The giving of the spirit as God had given to the Jews

Acts 15:8 (LEB) — 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us.

that truly smacks of denial that anyone would claim being given the gift of the spirit, receiving the spirit, being given the spirit refers only to an empowerment by the Spirit


There is no scriptural support for such a claim

BTW seeing as you have confirmed the gift of the spirit includes the indwelling

the gentiles were indwelt

Acts 10:45 (LEB) — 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,

Again it is absurd you claim this is mere empowerment

when scripture claims they were given the gift of the spirit, were given the spirit, had received the spirit


BTW it was you who did not read clearly as this is what I stated

TomL said:
and your position is that gift included the indwelling

and you stated no that is not my position

 

[dwight92070]

Nope. The two are not connected. Cornelius did not need to be saved in order for the Holy Spirit to empower them. He empowered a donkey (Num 22:22-35), He can empower rocks (Matt 3:9-10), He can empower

Your interpretation is false. Peter said that they received the Holy Spirit Just like he and the rest of the 120 did, so he concluded that they not only had been instantly saved, but baptized in the Holy Spirit. Because of that, he said they were candidates to be baptized. You can't rightfully compare the baptism of the Holy Spirit with what the Spirit did in the Old Testament. The Old Testament occurrences were NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was something totally new that only Jesus Himself did.

This conclusion does not fit with all Scripture. John 3:5 says that to enter the Kingdom of God they (and everyone else as well) need to be born again of both water and the Spirit. If they had only received the Spirit, then they were not born again. 1 Pet 3:21 says that it is through water baptism that we receive salvation. In order for this to be fulfilled, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius would not save him. You are trying to make Scripture fit your preconceptions, but it is your preconceptions that must change to fit what Scripture says.

Where is that stated in Scripture? That is just your personal conclusion, that is not supported by Scripture at all.

Again, in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit only falls on someone who has already been saved - or , as in this case, at the same time as their salvation. You can't expect that the activity of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament will be the same as in the Old Testament. In the New Testament the baptism of the Holy Spirit never occurs with an unbeliever - only on those who have already put their faith in Jesus. There was no such thing as the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, even though you try to equate the two.
Where is that stated in Scripture?

 

[TomL]

Your interpretation is false. Peter said that they received the Holy Spirit Just like he and the rest of the 120 did, so he concluded that they not only had been instantly saved, but baptized in the Holy Spirit. Because of that, he said they were candidates to be baptized. You can't rightfully compare the baptism of the Holy Spirit with what the Spirit did in the Old Testament. The Old Testament occurrences were NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was something totally new that only Jesus Himself did.

Again, in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit only falls on someone who has already been saved - or , as in this case, at the same time as their salvation. You can't expect that the activity of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament will be the same as in the Old Testament. In the New Testament the baptism of the Holy Spirit never occurs with an unbeliever - only on those who have already put their faith in Jesus. There was no such thing as the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, even though you try to equate the two.
Where is that stated in Scripture?

Correct. It is so obvious they had received the spirit himself and been indwelt

 

[TomL]

Doug brent




There should've been a question mark there

For your position is the gift of the Holy does speak of the indwelling

And Mine as well

if you read all my post you will see that

and I use the fact that the gift of the spirit references the indwelling of the spirit when I stated

Acts 10:44–47 (LEB) — 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!”

So the gentiles received the gift of the spirit as had the believers from the circumcision.

the gift of the spirit being the reception of the spirit.

The giving of the spirit as God had given to the Jews

Acts 15:8 (LEB) — 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us.

that truly smacks of denial that anyone would claim being given the gift of the spirit, receiving the spirit, being given the spirit refers only to an empowerment by the Spirit


There is no scriptural support for such a claim

BTW seeing as you have confirmed the gift of the spirit includes the indwelling

the gentiles were indwelt

Acts 10:45 (LEB) — 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,

Again it is absurd you claim this is mere empowerment

when scripture claims they were given the gift of the spirit, were given the spirit, had received the spirit


BTW it was you who did not read clearly as this is what I stated

TomL said:
and your position is that gift included the indwelling

and you stated no that is not my position

Addendum

this

TomL said:
and your position is that gift included the indwelling

was in reference to Acts 2:38 where the promise was to receive the gift of the spirit

 

[mailmandan]

Excursion on the absurd

When you can show it is stated the donkey received or was given the spirit, your citation might have some value. As such is never stated anywhere in scripture, your citing of the donkey's experience is absurd.

BTW it is never stated the donkey had the gift of tongues either

One of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever heard by folks who attend the CoC (in a desperate effort to accommodate their biased church doctrine at all costs) and "get around" the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 had already believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift which is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism is that Balaam's donkey also spoke in tongues, but that does not prove the donkey was saved either.

In the first place, the Lord simply opened the mouth of the donkey to speak in order to rebuke Balaam. The donkey did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or the spiritual gift of tongues, which is for the body of Christ ONLY. This same ludicrous argument concludes that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 merely received the gift of tongues, but not the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just unbelievable!

 

[TomL]

One of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever heard by folks who attend the CoC (in a desperate effort to accommodate their biased church doctrine at all costs) and "get around" the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 had already believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift which is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism is that Balaam's donkey also spoke in tongues, but that does not prove the donkey was saved either.

In the first place, the Lord simply opened the mouth of the donkey to speak in order to rebuke Balaam. The donkey did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or the spiritual gift of tongues, which is for the body of Christ ONLY. This same ludicrous argument concludes that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 merely received the gift of tongues, but not the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just unbelievable!

It truly is absurd.

The donkey had not received the spirit, was not given the Spirit.

And the claim

that the Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 merely received the gift of tongues, but not the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is contrary to scripture

Acts 10:45 (NASB95) — 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.