Gary,

The version of the "Great Commission" in the book of Mark says:

This verse of scripture makes infant "baptism" an unchristian practice.  According to Jesus (the author and finisher of our faith) one has to believe before they are baptized.  Jesus put belief before baptism and baptism before salvation.  Any doctrine contrary to this is not of God.

Rob

Because who would be stupid enough to baptize an unbeliever?  Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and other denominations that practice infant "baptism" are not baptizing at all.

Christian baptism happens when a believer (which an infant cannot be) is immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Infants do not believe and have never sinned.

Sprinkling water on someone's forehead is not immersion (lit. baptism).  Sprinkling water on an unbeliever is not baptism.  He that "believeth not" cannot be baptized into Christ, whether infant or adult. 

Human beings are damned.  Jesus came that we might be saved.  We might be saved and we might not be.  It all depends on our doctrine.  If we hold to false doctrine, although we believe in something called Jesus and God, we are still damned.  Salvation happens when we believe the correct teaching of the bible.

Not everyone who claims Jesus as Lord can enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Claiming Jesus as Lord is important but it's not the be-all-and-end-all, is it?  Most Protestant denominations teach that baptism is not necessary for salvation.  That is as shallow as saying that belief or confession were not necessary for salvation.  People who teach false doctrine are preventing others from entering into the kingdom of heaven.

You will know them by their fruit.  If their fruit is not in agreement with the word of God then their fruit is corrupt.  I don't care how meek and mild, loving and generous they are; if they teach doctrine contrary to the teaching of the scriptures, their fruit is corrupt and they are not of God.

Most modern Protestantism, because of unbelief in the teaching of the bible, is corrupt and not of God.  Although God can and does use these corrupt things, they are not of Him.  God used Pharaoh and Adolf Hitler but that doesn't mean He approved of them.

The implication is that if one does not continue in "the doctrine" that he can neither save himself nor his hearers.

Baptism is clearly a doctrine in which most have not continued.  They view baptism as a work that man does.  Because of this corrupt thinking, they have rejected it, claiming that we're not saved by works.  But what saith the scriptures?

Baptism is a work - but not a work that man does.  As far as Christians are concerned, baptism is faith in the operation of God, who raised Christ from the dead.  In baptism, God is the One working - not man.

Satan has deceived the vast majority of the religious world that calls itself "Christian" into ignoring or trivializing the doctrine of baptism.  Everything the Christian is and does starts at their baptism.  We were made new creatures, given a new Spirit, and we gained dominion over sin when we were baptized into Christ.  The fact that most denominations do not teach that undermines the faith.  We invent new terms and reject bible doctrine.

We say, "I got saved" (which isn't even proper English) when we hear (or feel) the calling of God.   Preachers and teachers tell us we were saved BEFORE we were baptized into Christ but they cannot prove that doctrine by the bible.

If you mess up the birthing process, nothing else much matters.  If we are not taught when and how the new life in Christ begins we cannot tell others.   If we cannot tell others, Satan wins.

Rob

Rob, I too believe in the importance of baptism. But I ask this of all those reading.... what happens when someone accepts Christ, but was never told of baptism, either because of ignorance of the one teaching Christ, or because of the lack of time to the hearer?

What happens to the new convert? Is he indeed saved? Or not.

Does he go into everlasting torment or into everlasting glory??

[star!]

Gary,

Asked another way: "Can anyone who is not 'in Christ' be saved?"

In the book of Ephesians, we read about all the blessings available to those who are "in Christ".  Am I "in Christ" because I say I am?  How do the scriptures say one get "into Christ"?

The expression "as many as" means "no more and no less".  If you have been baptized according to the scriptures then, according to the scriptures, you are "in Christ" (i.e. you have put on or clothed yourself with Christ).

Sprinkling doesn't count.  According to the scriptures, that's not baptism.  Baptism represents a burial; sprinkling does not.  Since this is the case, therefore, close to 100% of the Catholic Church is not saved.  There are rare exceptions but most people are Catholic because their parents were Catholics.  Most Catholics were never baptized into Christ; they have never put on Christ.

Does that mean that you cannot "feel saved"?  No.  Feelings are subjective.  A person can feel any way they want.  Feelings are good but nowhere in scripture does it say that those who feel saved are saved.  You can be as sincere as you want but if you are wrong then you are sincerely wrong.

You wrote: what happens when someone accepts Christ, but was never told of baptism, either because of ignorance of the one teaching Christ, or because of the lack of time to the hearer?

By "accepts Christ", I'll assume you mean "believes in Christ".  The expression "accept Christ" is never used in the New Testament.  The form of the word "accept" is most often used not in reference to our acceptance of God but to God's acceptance of us.

According to this account of the Great Commission, Jesus placed two conditions on salvation: belief and baptism.  If you've only believed then you have not fulfilled all the conditions.  If you've only been baptized, you have not fulfilled all the conditions.

This is what Craig (EarthenVessel) keeps bringing up in support of his "baptism in water is all wet" theology.  He has stated that every reference to baptism in the New Testament is "baptism in the Holy Spirit".  He says that he has seen lots of people get dunked in water only to emerge "wet sinners".  It is for this reason that he throws out baptism as a meaningless ritual.

Does the bible give an example of a preacher who did not know about Christian baptism?  Yes.

The preacher who leads a person to belief in Christ who does not baptize that person into Christ is operating on very shaky ground.  Acts 19 shows us an example where Paul found "certain disciples" who had not been baptized into Christ and so he baptized them.

Regarding "the lack of time to the hearer", I can speak personally to this issue.  I was a member of a church of Christ in Covington, KY.  Every week we went to a nursin home to sing songs and preach a little.

One guy told the preacher of our church that he wanted to be baptized.  This guy was an amputee.  His legs were amputated from the knee down.   Our preacher asked the nursing home manager if he could baptize this believer.  The manager did not get back with him right away.

The following week, the preacher went out of town on vacation.  It was at that time that I learned about the guy's wish to be baptized.  So I approached the nursing home manager and asked to baptize him.  He said that my preacher was going to baptize him when he came back from vacation.  Later that week, the man died.

Either the scriptures are true or they're not.  If Jesus knew what He was talking about in the 16th chapter of Mark then our guy in the nursing home is in torment for eternity.  If Jesus was mistaken then there's hope for the guy.  Maybe Jesus was wrong.  Maybe our lax attitude toward His specific commandment was acceptable to Him.  Maybe our timidity and laziness is "good enough" for God.  Maybe vacation is more important than obedience.  We're all to blame.

I honestly believe that those of us who visited that nursing home will be held accountable on Judgment Day.  God provided us with "low hanging fruit" and we failed.  Because of us, another soul is in hell. Father forgive us; we know not what we do.

The way I read the bible, you cannot be saved if you are not in Christ.  If you have not been baptized into Christ (Gal 3:27) you are not in Christ.  It's not a meaningless ritual.  It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6 and Col 2).  It is the point at which we receive remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  Because of these things, baptism doth also now save us (1 Pet. 3:21).

Rob

He that payeth his fare and taketh his seat on the bus shall ride, but he that payeth not shall be left behind!

In this allegorical paraphrase of Mark 16:16, we see that the requirement for one to ride the bus is to pay the fare. Taking a seat is a logical follow-on, a general characteristic of one who has just paid a bus fare. However, it is not necessarily required that one take a seat in order to ride the bus. But try not paying that fare, and no bus ride for you!

I'm not arguing the larger point, just illustrating how I read Mark 16:16. To me (and quite a few commentators) it does not necessarily say that baptism is required for salvation, but like taking that seat on the bus, it is a logical follow-on to believing.

And there's a vote for "Jesus did not say what He meant".

Mike, what if Jesus said exactly what He meant?  Would you believe Him?  Without regard to the great cloud of commentators, what if Jesus said what He meant?  Would the commentators be right or wrong?

In fact, it can be demonstrated that baptism is NOT a logical follow-on to belief in Jesus.  How many devout Catholics have been baptized into Christ? I personally do not know any and I know a TON of Catholics - a few of them, devout. What about other denominations that do not require scriptural baptism?

And I'm not simply talking about immersion.  "He that believeth and is baptized" is the logical (scriptural) condition.  Catholics (or at least all the ones I know about) were "baptized" BEFORE they believed or disbelieved ANYTHING.  Your statement that baptism is a "logical follow-on to believing" is empirically false.

My mom, grandmother, aunts, and uncle were devout Catholics who believed in something they called Jesus and God.  My sister and a few of my cousins are also devout Catholics and none of them were baptized AFTER they believed in Jesus.

If indeed Jesus meant what He said then indeed it does mean "that baptism is required for salvation".  If He did not mean what He said then any belief is as good as any other belief - on this topic or any other.

Jesus said, "... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life".  (Jn. 6:63b)

Jesus had to be dead-on accurate in the things that He said and I reject the implication that Jesus minced or wasted words.

Ok, Rob, you said scriptural baptism, I know when I was in the Mormon church, we were taught that only baptisms done by an ordained Elder were valid, because the other churches were not ordained. The Mormons do teach that the ones that were not baptized by the Mormons could still get into heaven, if they are baptized by proxy, through the church. NOT that I still follow the Mormon teachings, but the baptism by proxy has always had me wonder, because it is in the New Testament. And was practiced until Constitine stopped it.

But according to what you wrote, at least as I read it, is that no matter how sincere a persons faith is, and no matter how much a person loves the Lord, if they were not immersed in water, then their is NO HOPE!

Gary,

In the Garden of Eden, Eve could have taken the stance, "You were SERIOUS?!?!?"

God has bent over backwards to save you and me.  If we come back at Him with, "Well, you didn't really mean what you said", how's He supposed to react?

God SPOKE the universe into existence.  He had to calculate every variable before He spoke because He's God.  Everything He says is done.  Jesus couldn't afford be a class clown (like I tend to be) because He was bound by His words.  He cannot be flippant or vain (like we can).  He's God and what He say, goes.

The only one who can trump the word of God is man.  Satan knows it too.  We can either cooperate with God or we can place doubt in what He said.  There's no middle-ground.  We're either for Him or against Him.

If God says people without Christ have no salvation, who are we to disagree?  The word of God says that we "clothe ourselves with Christ" when we are baptized.  Is that just one man's opinion or is that the word of God?  If it's the word of God, we ought to take heed.

Saying that maybe someone has hope without Messiah is to trivialize His mission.  If anyone can be saved without Christ then He wasted His time (and His very life).  We obey because we believe but if we believe the wrong stuff we will obey the wrong stuff.  The more sincerely we believe the wrong stuff the more we will sincerely obey the wrong stuff.

If God meant for His word to be believed then there is NO HOPE in any opinion that is contrary to His word.  If God said, "Take it or leave it" then we can all go home.  If that's the case then none of the bible has any more merit than anything we can dream up ourselves. And THIS is the state of modern Christianity.

To be absolutely clear, no matter how much one loves the Lord, if they were not immersed in water, according to the scriptures, then there is no hope for them.  Their faith is in vain and they are still in their sins.

I agree, we must be baptized. But my question is this, did the Lord give us an opportunity to rectify the omission of an erroneous teaching by a preacher/teacher with the verse:

I don't know.  The verse is too obscure. 

Can one person believe for another person?  Can one repent for another?  I don't see the scriptures teaching either of those.

Acts 2:38 gives us the parameters for baptism:  Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1) Belief

2) Repentance

3) Baptism

4) We receive remission of sins and

5) the gift of the Holy Ghost

All of these steps are very personal.  I cannot do any of these for anybody else.  It doesn't work that way.

Why are people baptized?  Is it just rote obedience to God or does it serve a useful purpose?  The bible says that when we're baptized into Christ we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  This gift gives us power over sin (Romans 6) and puts us "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8).  If we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal.5:16).  If I am separated from my flesh (because I'm dead) then I don't have "lust of the flesh".  If I'm dead, I don't need power over the flesh - the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, if people in the first century were really getting baptized in order to save dead people (which I seriously doubt they were) then the purpose of that ritual had to be different than it is for us.  We're not saved because we were baptized, we receive the Holy Spirit because we've been baptized.  We're saved because we have received the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:9).  The shorthand is "we're saved by baptism" (1 Pet. 3:21) but the reason we're saved by baptism is because of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  Without these, it's an empty ritual.

If people believed the wrong stuff when they died, they have no ability to repent (lit. change their mind).  Repentance is for this realm - not the next.  People aren't weeping and gnashing their teeth because they're so sorry for their error, they are being punished for their error.  It's afforded unto man once to die and after that the judgment. All the repentance in the world cannot change your reality in the next realm.  That's why this Jesus thing is so important.  There's no second chance.

Concerning Baptism for the Dead, the bible would have to devote more than one obscure verse of scripture to this doctrine.  Christian baptism has certain parameters that don't translate well outside the context of our physical reality.  Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.  There's no unbelief in the next realm.  There's no lust of the flesh in the next realm.  There's no sin in the next realm. There is only reward and punishment.  That's all.  No second chance.  No do-overs.  Baptism for the dead (as it's taught in the Mormon Church) leaves us with the impression that death is not final.

This is the same impression we get from the doctrine of Purgatory.  Purgatory is where everybody in the Catholic Church goes to work off their sins before they can be clean enough to get into heaven.   It would be a find doctrine if it weren't of the devil.

We all want to believe in a second chance.  That's fine, as long as we can support it with scripture.  The clearer the scripture, the better.

we are assuming for the sake of this conversation, that the person has repented, but was never immersed under water.

As to being baptised into Christ, this is evidently a different occurrence because read Acts

Alright, sir.  They repented but were not baptized.  Therefore, while on earth, they did not receive remission of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

When Luke writes that the Holy Ghost had not "fallen upon" any of them, this is a reference to the baptism in the Holy Ghost (or some other miraculous manifestation of the Holy Ghost) - not the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.  (See Two Types of Holy Spirit)  We receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost when we are baptized in water otherwise Acts 2:38 makes no sense.

So the question becomes, "Can a spirit indwell a spirit?"  I don't think so.  No demon can possess another demon.  God's Spirit is not given to angels.  Dead people are in a spirit form.  Therefore, they can't receive the Holy Spirit like they could have, if they'd been baptized as a mortal.

If they can't receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (see Romans 8:9).  So the question becomes: "Can a person who does not belong to Christ be saved?"  I can't think of a scripture to support that, can you?

At death, we lose the capacity to be saved.  When we lose this body, there's nothing to put a new Spirit into.  I have to conclude that salvation is only possible here.

To implement baptism for the dead, we have to adopt a "saved by works" mentality.  We're not saved because we're baptized, we're saved because we have received a new Spirit - a re-birth.  Dead people cannot be born again; that's called reincarnation.

Rob

Brother, you wrote:

We receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost when we are baptized in water otherwise Acts 2:38 makes no sense.

 But the Samaritans had been baptized in water, in the name of Christ, but had not yet received the Holy Ghost.

Gary,

Listen to me.  They did not receive a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit until after teh apostles laid hands on them.  We have to divide it up like that or else Acts 2:38 disagrees with Acts 8:16.

If you can keep these things the same and not wind up with a contradiction I'd like to hear it.  If there are not two forms of "receiving the Holy Spirit" then we have to reconcile not only Acts 2 and Acts 8 but also Acts 10 and Acts 19. The best explanation I havefound so far is that Luke is talking about two different forms or manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

30-years ago, I remember some Pentecostal churches teaching that the Holy Ghost was different from the Holy Spirit.  I haven't heard this doctrine since I've been saved again.  The doctrine stemmed from their being married to the King James Version of the bible.  But the truth is that there are two different forms but they are referred to as almost the same thing.

Luke uses the terms, "fall upon" or "came upon" when he's talking about the miraculous form of the Holy Spirit.  Remember that imparting gifts of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands is itself a spiritual gift.  Simon the Sorcerer tried to buy that power from Peter.  Peter condemned him for trying to purchase what God gives to us freely.

Timothy received the gift of prophecy by the laying on of the hands of either the presbytery (elders) or Paul, or both (see 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Tim. 1:6). But I digress...

I challenge you to come up with a better theory because, frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable with this "two forms" doctrine myself.  Here's my offer: If you come up with a better doctrine, I'll buy you lunch.  Howzat sound?

Rob

Ok, here is my offer:

Water baptism is the outward representation of our death in Christ. It is necessary in that we must die to self in order for Christ to live in us.

The Holy Spirit/Ghost in the inner manifestation, again necessary for us to live in His power

The anointing of the Holy Spirit in order to receive the gifts, offices....

All separate, as some were filled with the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized with water.

But only those baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit received the gifts/offices.

I never heard this theory that being baptized in water was the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.

Being "filled with the Spirit" is kind of a subjective thing.  Luke always records someone saying or doing something when they were "filled with the Holy Ghost".  Mary, Elizabeth, Zachariah, and others were "filled with the Holy Ghost".  John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb".  This is distinct from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which was not possible until after Jesus ascended into heaven.  This thing divides on dispensational lines too.

People under the Law could receive an anointing of the Holy Spirit.  This could not be possible if it were the indwelling type because Jesus had not yet sent that form of the Holy Spirit.

For this verse to be true, we have to divide what is meant by "the Holy Ghost/Spirit".

David had the anointing of the Holy Spirit, so did Saul.  Every prophet had the anointing.  Does that mean that they had the same gift of the Holy Spirit you and I have?  No.  Jesus had not yet been glorified so they did not have a chance to have received the Holy Spirit like you and I have.   What we have is peculiar to this Covenant.

People under the Old Covenant had gifts of the Holy Spirit and so do we.  This is not the unique form of the Holy Spirit that we have today.  What we have is the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit.  Today, God takes up residence in His people.  There's no need for a temple because we are the temple of God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

How did He get there?  As you point out, some people received gifts of the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.  The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not new.  They're as old as the oldest prophet of God.  We don't need to be baptized in water to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  So what is Peter talking about in Acts 2:38?

Did those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit?  Not that we can tell by the scriptures.

If the people who were baptized had received the gifts of the Holy Spirit then verse 43 has three too many words.  The period (.) should have come after the word "done".  The scriptures interpret themselves.  The apostles were the only ones operating in the gifts (plural) of the Holy Ghost but we know (because of verse 38) that everyone who was baptized that day received the gift (singular) of the Holy Ghost.

That being the case, therefore, what can we conclude?   One theory that fits is the "indwelling theory".  In fact, it fits so perfectly in every case that it must be right - as clunky as it is.

It would be SO much easier if the gift of the Holy Ghost meant one thing.  But there are too many cases where the "one thing" theory doesn't fit well at all.  Acts 8 is one of the biggest misfits.  Acts 10 makes NO SENSE if they are the same thing.  Why baptize in water if these guys have already received the Holy Spirit?  But if these are two different types then Acts 8 and Acts 10 make total sense.

This is a seductive doctrine, Gary.  Whatever you have has to be stronger than this.  Unfortunately, we can't just go to one or two verses for this.  This stuff is all over the scriptures.  In this comment, I've identified teaching in Luke, John, and Acts.  When we get to Acts, baptism all of a sudden gets involved.  Resolving baptism takes us into the teachings of Paul (Galatians, Colossians, Romans, 1 Corinthians) and Peter (1 Peter 3).  This is a doctrine with legs.

Rob, notice the lack of the letter "S" here though.

 He is just stating that the Holy Spirit is a gift, not earned. He does not say be baptized and receive the "giftS" of the Holy Spirit.

As to using the many scriptures, does it help knowing the time lines of when these were written? Just a question, could the teaching about the Holy Spirit be kind of like hoe James taught one thing, which was refuted by Paul later on??

As to the period, what we have to remember is the early Greek and Hebrew had no commas, or periods, these were added latter, around 400 years or so. Possibly even later. 

So  TheWayHomeMinistries quote above could be read two different ways...

 Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Like we have it now.

Or 

Verily I say unto thee to day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Notice how changing the placement of the comma totally changes the sentence.

Guys,

The thief on the cross is often used as a proof that Christians don't have to be baptized.  Gary, you are correct but not the way you think you are.  Timing is everything.  If you can explain how the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was messed up in the beginning and later clarified then that would be fair.  But I only see one person being refuted and repenting of his baptism / Holy Spirit doctrine in the New Testament (Apollos in Acts 18).

Regarding the thief on the cross: Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins.  Christian baptism was not practiced until Acts 2:38 at the earliest.  Jesus did not command His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit until after His resurrection.  The thief on the cross is the last recorded person to be saved under the Old Covenant.  His experience has little to do with ours.

Under the New Covenant, we are told that baptism is the starting point of the new life in Christ. Without baptism we are not "added to the church", which is His body - the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

Any church or ministry based on the New Covenant has to take into account these statements and examples in the book of Acts.  But what do we see today?

When a person hears a good sermon and wants to give his life to Jesus what does the modern Protestant preacher do?  Does he follow the example of the book of Acts and baptize that person into Christ?  No.  To his way of thinking, that would be "saved by works".   So what does he do?  He gets with the person and says "The Sinner's Prayer" and invites Jesus into his heart.

There is no example anywhere in the bible of anybody doing that with a new convert.  None of modern mainstream Protestantism looks like the church of the New Testament.

Give me book, chapter, and verse, for praying The Sinner's Prayer.  Give me the name of the book that spells out the text of the Sinner's Prayer.  Show me where any of the people in the New Testament prayed The Sinner's Prayer to receive Jesus into their hearts.

In fact, the expression, "receive Jesus into your heart" is not found in the New Testament scriptures.  You'd think that if such a thing were as common as we find it today, there'd be some description of it in the scriptures.  But there's not.

What we do find happening in the scriptures is that when someone believed in Jesus, they were immediately baptized in His name.   Modern Protestants are too good for that.  They have to wait until their "Baptism Service" when they can make a big show of it.

The reason they wait is because they fundamentally do not believe what the scriptures say about baptism.  If they believed what the bible said about it, they would not hesitate to get this person in the water.  If they believed that it was the point at which everyone receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they would not wait one second.  But because of their unbelief in the efficacy of baptism, they wait.

We say that a person "got saved" when they hear the gospel and repent of their sins.  The expression "got saved" is not found in the New Testament canon yet we insist on using this unbiblical expression.  Here's a piece of advice, if you cannot define your doctrine using the scriptures, it's probably not of God.

In the church of Christ, we call bible things by bible names.  This rule cuts down on a lot of confusion.  Although we use the expression, "worship service" we are acutely aware that the term is not used anywhere in the New Testament.  We rarely refer to our building as "the church" because "the church" is people - not a building.  We call preachers, preachers and not pastors, unless they are indeed shepherds of the flock.  We don't have a central control (a Vatican City or Southern Baptist Convention) because we don't find that structure in the New Testament.  We have local control via the office of bishop.  These bishops (pastors) are chosen on the basis of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.   No bishopric can be under another because we do not find that pattern anywhere in the New Testament.  In the church of Christ, we do church on purpose.

But if you have never been nauseated at the abuse of churchianity, then your disdain for it will not drive you to the church of Christ.  I was raised in the Catholic Church which is a harlequin or caricature of the New Testament church.  Catholicism is the poster child for everything that's wrong with the church.  Revelation calls her, "the mother of harlots" because every denomination that has sprung from her loins is as fundamentally flawed as she is.  Protestant denominations are still playing church Roman style.  The church of Christ purposely steers clear of her error by maintaining a strong adherence to the pattern found in the New Testament.

Therefore, where the bible speaks, we speak and where the bible is silent, we are silent.  The scriptures speak of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), therefore, we practice baptism for the remission of sins.  The bible says that if one has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that one belongs to Christ (Romans 8:9).  The bible says that when one is baptized, one receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This is why we (generally) do not delay in baptizing. The bible mentions "baptism for the dead" but without some teaching on the subject, we have to remain silent.  We speak where the bible speaks and we are silent where the bible is silent.

This is why my comments are so long.  I need a bible reason for everything I believe.  Most people are not under such a yoke.  Catholicism, for example, is wide open and free from slavery to the word of God.  If she wants to worship angels, then so be it.  If she wants to bow down before graven images then praise the Lord.  She is not constrained by anything God has ever said.

Protestantism is not much better.  Protestants are at least aware that God said something.  Believing that "something" is generally optional, however.  There is no strong commitment to making the word of God consistent, coherent, or understandable. Protestants (and even most garden variety church of Christ folks) are content to believing the doctrine of their denomination without regard to what the bible says about it.

Look at what Mike n Laura said.  To prove his theology, he took a bus ride.  The fact that his bus ride has nothing to do with the "larger point" has no affect on his doctrine.  That is sloppy religion.

Most people have not thought about what they believe or why they believe it.  All of us try to make the bible fit our theology.  That's just human.  But what if there was a way to read the bible that made sense?  What if God wasn't just slapping words on a page and hoping for the best?  What if we could actually learn what He was trying to teach?

Gary, I wish I could draw you a picture and make it as clear as a bell but I can't.  Nobody can.  You have to re-read the book of Acts with these teachings in the back of your head.  When you read about baptism or the Holy Spirit, ask yourself if it's talking about the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit (hint: look for expressions like "fallen upon" or "came upon") or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Knowing that a teaching is from the Old Testament or the New is also very helpful.  Doctrines on tithing are always taken from the Old Testament because there is no such thing as New Testament tithing.  We have to "rightly divide the word of truth".

rob

In an email to me, a guy once said, "The gifts that you refer to are evidence that the Holy Spirit dwells within a person."

That sounds right but is that what the bible teaches?

The whole denominational world is all screwed up on this doctrine of the Holy Spirit. What if the bible nowhere claimed that "the gifts of the Holy Spirit are evidence that the Holy Spirit dwells within a person"?  Would that fact change anyone's theology?  Probably not.

Isaiah had the gift of prophecy.  I have the gift of prophecy.  Isaiah did NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but I do.  Isaiah could not have had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39).

My point is that the bible does NOT teach the the gifts of the Holy Spirit are evidence that the Holy Spirit dwells in a person.  That simple fact has escaped 99.9% of the religious world that calls itself Christian.  It's a HUGE error but that doesn't stop people from believing it or teaching it.

Good research, Gene.  How do we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (give book / chapter / verse)?  How do we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit? (again, give B/C/V).  Is there a difference between having the gifts of the Holy Spirit and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?  Can you have one without the other?  

The answers to these questions are in the bible but it takes some skill to answer them accurately.  Just when we think we might have a solution, we wind up violating some other passage of scripture.

Gary's blog is about baptism.  When we get to the book of Acts we find that this ritual has something to do with the Holy Spirit.  The trick is coming up with a theory (i.e. a working model) that takes into account everything in the New Testament that has to do with the Holy Spirit.

We have not yet addressed all of the scriptures in this blog.  I have monopolized the teaching here.  There is a HUGE scripture that threatens to tear down everything I've built.  It's in the book of Galatians and being baptized in water is not mentioned in receiving the Holy Spirit (indwelling or otherwise).  It's grist for the mill, boys, and nobody has brought it up yet.  Don't make this easy on me; that would be insulting.

Bingo!

Now, given everything we know so far, how do we deal with not only this passage of scripture but this one as well.

What do we know about Paul's encounter with the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19?

These are difficult passages for those of us who want the scriptures to say, "When you're baptized in water, you receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

I can make these passages be consistent with that doctrine but it sounds like a cheat.  Here goes: Baptism is faith.

It's kinda not a cheat, though.  Listen to the words Paul used, "...wherein also ye are risen with Him..."

In baptism, we die and are buried with Christ.  Romans 6:4 uses very similar language to Colossians 2:12.

We die with Jesus when we're baptized and "like as Christ was raised up from the dead...even so we...".  Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit, right?

Romans 6:4 tells us that, "like as Christ was raised up from the dead..." How was Jesus raised from the dead?  By the Spirit of the Father (Rom. 8:11).

Therefore, if baptism works as designed, we MUST receive a new Spirit when we emerge.  If we do not receive a new Spirit, we remain lifeless, spiritless, dead men.  If we do receive a new Spirit then we are literally born again at baptism.

If you connect with all the symbolism of baptism, you have to conclude that it is the most important step you will ever take.

Baptism is faith - faith in the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead the same exact way He raises us to walk in newness of life.  Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and so are we.

The opposite of that verse is true too.  If we have not been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall not be in the likeness of His resurrection.  Did the apostle Paul think that baptism was necessary or not?

Rob

See, I don't have any issues with those scriptures, because I see water baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as separate events.

They are but, in order to be raised to walk in newness of life we need to have something.  The bible teaches that that "something" is the Holy Spirit.

At what point does a person receive the indwelling of the Holy spirit, if not at baptism?

A person receives when he hears about by faith, lay of hands is usually how they received I believe.

 Although sometimes just hearing in faith will do it too.

And sometimes, they might receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism.

So I don't think there is any one formula for receiving the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. You either hear about Him in faith, or you don't.

Just because someone is baptized in water does not mean they automatically have received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. See the scripture above, Acts 19.

define what you mean by "miraculous form of the Holy Spirit"

What does it mean to you?

Speak in tongues, prophesy, etc.

That's what it means to me.  The purpose of miracles / gifts of the HS is to bear witness to the truth of God's word - according to the scriptures.

Well, not everyone doing miracles is of Christ, remember that the anit-Christs of the world will and have done fake miracles, and can even do many wonders. so just because someone speaks in tongues does not mean they have the Holy Spirit

But back to the question. I believe that it was only after the Holy Spirit fell upon the believers that these were done. Can someone heal without the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit, sure, but we must also look at the fruits their lives produce, not just the miracles they can do.

Look at  Criss Angel, he can do all kinds of what appear to be wondrous works.

Leaving aside the false miracles and false teachers, let's assume everyone is on the up-and-up.

Can a brand new person who does not have any good works have the Holy Spirit or do they have to wait until after they do a good work or two?

hahaha.... you so funny!!!

All I am, saying is if someone hears about the Holy Spirit, and receives Him in faith, then the power to do those miracles will also manifest. 

All I am saying about the fruits, is if I see someone doing miracles, then I will see if they are producing good fruits before I jump on the band wagon with them. 

For example if a preacher comes into town, and produces miracles, great, and I will pray that he continues, but if he comes and does these and wants me to support his ministry, then I will look into his life, if he is a womanizing, beer drinking, drug pushing cusser, then I will not support him.

Rob, Rob, Rob.......

I don't think so. I don't remember reading this requirement. I have heard it preached that way though.

Please alow me to re-frase my earlier comment....

All I am, saying is if someone hears about the Holy Spirit, and receives Him in faith, then the power to do those miracles CAN also manifest. 

But the person who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit WILL have the fruits develope.

Okay.  So the extent of it is as follows:

"if someone hears about the Holy Spirit, and receives Him in faith, then the power to do those miracles will also manifest."

Except the power to do those miracles may not manifest.

I knew a guy who lived across the street from me.  I would engage him in conversation every now and then.  One time, I asked him if he'd received the Holy Spirit.  He said, "Yes, he did".

"How did you receive Him", I asked.

"I laid on the bed and didn't move at all.  I opened myself up to receive Him and then I felt something warm all over me."

"That's how you received the Holy Spirit?"

"Yes", he said

Here's a guy who had heard of the Holy Spirit and received Him by faith.  Did he have the Holy Spirit or was he lying?  How can I know if someone is lying about that stuff or not?

But here is the question......

Why would it matter for YOU to know? Does his life reflect Christ?

I don't mean is he living a sinless life, for we have already established this.

What I mean is, does his life show the fruit of the spirit?

 If not, then yes he probably deceived himself into thinking he has the Holy Spirit, or maybe the warmth he felt was just gas.... hehehehe  sorry, could not resist that one   hehehehe

Well, I guess what I'm getting at...

Here's what I mean.  I'm a convicted sex offender, right?  I mean, I committed this crime after I was saved the first time.  I backslid and gave my heart to Satan. It turns out that I was really backslidden when I was still going to church.  I had a sex offender's heart even back when I was very involved in church activities, loved the Lord, and wanted to do the right thing.  I just got tired, ya know?

Now, the bible says that if one is baptized that one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  It says, He that believes and is baptized will be saved (Mk.16:16).  I believed the bible and I believed those specific verses.  I was a young adult when I made these changes in my life.

Did I receive the Holy Spirit the first time around?  If so, did I still have that Spirit even when I was committing my crime or did God take it back?

Can a person be saved if they don't have the Holy Spirit?

I "think" you may be miss interpreting the verse.

Peter is telling them that they need to repent, to be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit.

He did not say repent, be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.

 You see where I am going with this??

Three steps here, you see.

You are combining steps 2 and 3 into 1.

Repent --- Baptism --- Holy Spirit

As soon as Paul learned that these disciples had not received the Holy Spirit, what did he ask them?  "Unto what then were ye baptized?"

Craig (EarthenVessel) says that he was talking about baptism in the Holy Spirit but the text doesn't support it.  Look:

If people can just mentally switch on the baptism in the Holy Spirit then I guess this passage could indicate that.  The text says that when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  Everywhere else in Acts, this expression (baptized in the name of Jesus) means water baptism (see Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48).

Then Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit "came on" them. The expressions "came on", "fall on", etc. are always used in connection with the miraculous sense.

Oops...  Wait.  Are we agreed that there are two types of "receiving the Holy Spirit" spoken about in the book of Acts?  If not then none of what I say will make any sense.

But remember what Paul said to the Corinthians, he never baptized, evedently he had his helpers do the baptizing. So when Paul "laid his hands on them" it would have been after his helpers had done the baptizing.

As to the fall upon, did not the holy Spirit "fall upon" the disciples in the upper room...

Nope, they were filled with. 

But if you do a search for "filled with the Holy Spirit" you find that Elizabeth was "filled with" prior to Christ even being born.

As was Zacharias

 So, is it better to be filled with the Holy Spirit, or to have the Holy Spirit come upon you?

When Ananias laid his hand upon Paul, he was filled with the Holy Ghost.

The same for "Holy Ghost fell on them", used only once in Acts 11:15

I am wondering if possibly you may have gotten too deep into a word play here???

Gary,

This is good a study. 

If Elizabeth and Zacharais were filled with the Holy Ghost then what exists under the New Covenant also existed under the Old.  The Holy Spirit is nothing new.

The prophets also had a measure of the Holy Spirit as well.  David had the Holy Spirit otherwise he would not have written, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. 51).

All of that fits, except...

I'm playing with words, you're playing with words, the bible is playing with words.

If Jeus had not yet given the Holy Ghost then what do we do with the prophets, Moses, David, the judges, Elizabeth, Zachariah, and Mary, the blessed mother of Jesus?

John 7:39 is a problem.

You and I are building something here and it's based completely on the scriptures.  For this thing to survive it has to be able to take on all comers.  John 7:39 shoots a hole in the idea that our brand of the Holy Spirit is the same as their brand.

Notice that Jesus said that His brand of Holy Ghost would be on the inside and flow out.

New Testament Holy Spirit is different from Old Testament Holy Spirit.  People were "filled with the Holy Spirit" under the Old Covenant and also in the New.   People had gifts of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant and we have them under the New.  So far there is no difference between what we have and what they had.

Enter "the indwelling".  King David had the anointing of the Holy Spirit.  To anoint means to "rub on" or to "pour on" (as in "anoint my head with oil").  Until Jesus was glorified all people could have was this external application of the Holy Spirit.  This kind comes and goes.

After Jesus was glorified, however, God could now come and setup residence inside His people.  We call this the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Whereas the anointing comes and goes, through the indwelling, God will never leave us or forsake us.  He is part of us.

So, because of John 7:39, our structure has to take on a different form.  Jesus said that what He gives is unique.

If we're "playing" then, it's your turn :-)

Rob

Ok, so in John, he says that we would receive the Holy Spirit.,

that word receive is:

lambanō  to get hold of; ...,

When I searched for that phrase " receive the Holy Ghost"

I found it 2 times.

and

These verses take us back to the Samaritans, and to Simon the sorcer.

These were believers that had been baptized in Christ's name, but then received the Holy Spirit after, by prayer and the laying on of hands. 

But if we read further in this chapter, we find that Philip is talking with the eunuch in the chariot, and when he is finished speaking, the  eunuch is baptized, but we don't read anything about him being filled with the Holy Spirit. 

Interesting though, it is the  eunuch that requests to be baptized. So somewhere in what Philip said, he must have mentioned baptism, or else we are missing something culturally, something we don't find in our history, about baptism already to be known by the people as a process of conversion.

 And if it was known to be  the conversion process, then we have lost something as a church, because baptism is now taught to be secondary, and not primary in conversion. Because the  eunuch did not say any kind of sinners prayer, or anything else, only that he wanted to be baptised, and it is here that Philip says:

We are in total agreement about the culture of the modern church.  It is commonly taught that a person is saved when they are touched with the message of the gospel.  We don't find any examples of that in the book of Acts.

People cannot be "saved" without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9).

Regarding the expression, "lay hold of": One of the passages you missed was Acts 2:38, which says:

Lambano is the word translated "receive" in the above verse.

Simply believing with all one's heart was not sufficient to receiving (i.e. taking hold of) the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Acts 19 describes this.  These people were called "certain disciples" (Acts 19:1).  That means they were believers in Jesus.  These believers had not received the Holy Spirit.  This example flies in the face of the doctrine that says, "God gives the Holy Spirit to every believer".

People who had received a miraculous form of the Holy Spirit were still baptized in water.  Why?  If having the gifts (plural) of the Holy Spirit were a sign of having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then the events in Acts 10 don't make much sense.  But if when one is baptized in water, in the name of Jesus Christ, one receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (to the exclusion of the miraculous form) then Acts 10 makes sense.

Of course, this would also make sense if baptism were only a meaningless initiation ceremony that had nothing to do with anything of substance.  But if that were the case (which MANY Protestant churches believe and teach) then show me any other ceremony practiced by the apostles that had nothing to do with anything.  Communion is the only other ritual that first century Christians practiced and this is not an insignificant practice. Unchristian observances were condemned because they had no Christian significance (from circumcision to keeping kosher, to holy day observance).

If one is not baptized in water according to the scriptures then one is not saved according to the scriptures (see Mark 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, et. al.).  Are we saved by a meaningless ritual or does something substantive happen when a repentant believer submits to baptism?  I maintain, as does the church of Christ, that something of substance takes place at baptism.  That substantial something is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.

We are saved by grace through faith.  Baptism, therefore, is not a work that we do.  Baptism has to be, as the bible says, our faith in the operation of God who raised up Christ from the dead (see Col 2:12).

Protestants teach that baptism is a work that they do.  Since we are not saved by our works, the logic goes, we are not saved by baptism.  The only problem is that the bible says that we are indeed saved by baptism - in those exact words.

Therefore, mainline Protestantism is confused by the scriptures.  Now they have to get busy and start twisting the scriptures to fit their errant doctrine. 

Gary, I wish there was something I could say to get you to see these things.  I think we agree that there are two forms of the Holy Spirit (miraculous and indwelling) but we're still not in agreement over whether these different forms are received in different ways.

The church of Christ is constrained by the scriptures.  If one scripture says that we are righteous by faith then we have to accept that.  If another scripture says, "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved", then we have to believe that too.  If the scriptures say "for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation", we have to add that as well.

Salvation is a HUGE subject.  It is not of works lest any man should boast because it comes as a gift (grace) by believing it (faith).  Therefore, if you want to be a member of the church of Christ and have the same faith as the apostles had, you must reconcile all these parameters.

We, in the church, are not at liberty to take Romans 10:9-10 and say, "This is all one needs do to be saved".  Romans 10:9-10 only talk about belief of the heart and confession of the mouth.  What about repentance?  What about living the Christian life (i.e. walking in the Spirit)?  What about communion?  What about baptism?  Are none of these other things required to have the abundant life Jesus came to bring?  Of course not.

In the church of Christ, we have to examine the scriptures daily to see how and whether these things are true.  Going off half-cocked is not an option.  Focusing on Romans and ignoring the gospels (let's say) will only lead to error.  The church of Christ starts with the attitude that the doctrine of Christ is understandable and that His word reveals His will.  We are not of those who say that the bible is too complex.  Every element of my walk must have its basis in the word of God and if it doesn't, I am responsible to repent of that and to submit to God's revealed will and word.

The area of "doctrine" is MOST important because if my doctrine doesn't match His then that proves that I do not have God.

I cannot exhibit the fruit of something I do not have.  If my doctrine is not of Him then I really don't have God.  If my life does not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit then I don't have God.  If the church I go to does not practice, believe, or teach the will and word of God then I am not "abiding" in His doctrine.  I need to repent.

Everybody wants to believe that they know everything the bible has to say on every aspect of their lives but if they don't know His word, they have no chance of abiding in His doctrine.  If they don't abide in His doctrine they have not God.

That means that every practicing Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, most Pentecostals, some churches of Christ and any other church that does not abide in the doctrine of Christ is lost (i.e. unsaved).   Without God, you can do nothing.  And without the doctrine of Christ, you don't have God.

Tough town, ain't it?

Rob

We do agree that baptism is a requirement of salvation.

We agree that baptism is immersion in water.

We agree that we have to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We agree that not everyone gets the anointing of the Holy spirit (gifts)

Where we differ is when one receives the indwelling. I see it as separate from baptism, else the disciples in Acts 10, would not have had the Holy spirit yet, as they had not been baptized in Christ name. For the scriptures do not specify whether these had the gifts or the indwelling, it just states that the believers had the same Holy Spirit as Peter, and as you keep saying, we can only go by what scripture says, not what we want to read into it.

I do think one can receive the Holy Spirit (indwelling) prior to baptism.

Okay.  Great.

Since the indwelling and the miraculous are two different forms then what happened in Acts 10 is that Cornelius and his household received the miraculous form first.

This is not a violation or the rules since lots of the big names in the Old Testament had the miraculous form of the Holy Spirit without the indwelling form (which form was impossible before Jesus was glorified (John 7:39)).

Also, notice the wording (playing with words again):

The 120 who received this miraculous form of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) had one thing in common - they were all Jews.  Cornelius and his house had one thing in common - they were all Gentiles.  God poured out his Spirit on all flesh - to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

The apostles didn't baptize each other in water before the tongues of fire rested on their heads.  They received the miraculous form of the Holy Spirit - just like Cornelius and his household.

Therefore, what the apostles and Cornelius experienced we find no other example of in the scriptures.  These two "firsts" (Jew and then Greek)  are out of the order we find everywhere else but they demonstrate that the miraculous form can be received at any time.

In Acts 8, the Samaritans were baptized in water in the name of Jesus (code for "the indwelling of the Spirit") and then the apostles came down, prayed for them to "receive the Holy Ghost" (a generic term that can mean either the indwelling or spiritual gifts).

This is an important point.  For my theory to be accurate, I have to conclude that the term "receive the Holy Spirit" is not reserved for one form or another.  We know that in Acts 2:38, it was used in reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (because none of the multitude seemed to be able to work miracles after their baptism in water) and also in Acts 8 where the apostles prayed so that the Samaritans "might receive the Holy Ghost".

The laying on of hands resulted in a giving and receiving of the miraculous form of the Holy Spirit.  We know this because it was something that could be seen (i.e. perceived with the senses (verse 18)). The expression "receive the Holy Ghost" in this instance refers not to the indwelling form but to miraculous form of the Holy Spirit.  And this is why it is safe to conclude that "receive the Holy Ghost" is an expression that depends on context.

An expression that does not depend on context (any that I can think of) is "baptized in the name of the Jesus".  In Acts, this is always a reference to water baptism.  I think we agree on that too, right?

Now, it could be argued that the Samaritan believers received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (verse 16).  But if Acts 2:38 means what it says then receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has something to do with baptism in water (i.e baptism in the name of Jesus Christ).

The argument you used was as follows:

"Peter is telling them that they need to repent, to be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit.  He did not say repent, be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit."

The verse says:

You are correct that Acts 2:38 may be saying that sometime in the future you will receive the HS - not necessarily at the point of your baptism.

So if that is the case, Acts 2:38 does not provide for receiving the indwelling of the HS at any point prior to baptism in water.  Therefore, to say, "I do think one can receive the Holy Spirit (indwelling) prior to baptism", is a violation of Acts 2:38.  The result of baptism (according to this scripture) is twofold: 1) remission of sins and 2) the gift of the HS.  Neither of these benefits are promised to us prior to our being baptized.

It is accurate, however, to say that one can receive the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water.  BUT, as we have seen, the expression, "receive the Holy Spirit" can mean the miraculous form of the Holy Spirit depending on context.  Unless the apostles and Cornelius were absolutely the only ones to whom this has ever happened (and there's really no scriptural reason to believe their experience is unique) then people can indeed receive the Holy Spirit prior to their baptism in water - but not the indwelling form (the form that saves), only the miraculous form.

This would explain what we see happening in every denomination in the world (and of the world).  There are Charismatic Catholic who speak in tongues, heal the sick, prophesy, etc.  They have NEVER been baptized (immersed) in water and never will yet they carry around this power from on high.  They don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and as a result, He can't guide them into all truth so they remain empowered but lost and going to hell.  But this condition exists in ALL denominations, not just Catholicism.  A Charismatic Methodist is still lost until and unless he receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that happens when he is baptized (immersed) in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Methodists don't practice immersion as a rule.

We find that there are parameters and conditions to receiving all God's promises; the biggest condition of all is faith.  In other words, we have to believe it before we can receive it and we have to receive it according to His conditions and not ours.

We can win a contest and not take hold of (Lambano) the winnings in a number of ways.  We have to receive God's prize according to God's instructions or we cannot receive His gift at all.  Call it a formula or whatever you want.  The scriptures prescribe a way to receive each of God's promises and the method for receiving cannot be one way for one and another way for another unless specifically stated or exampled.  God is consistent and He is not the author of confusion.

Therefore, if the scriptures say, "repent and be baptized", we have a right (and an obligation) to ask, "Why?"  If the scriptures tell us why then we would be fools to ignore it.  As long as Acts 2:38 is in the bible, we have to deal with it.  We ignore it to our own destruction.  When the scriptures say, "baptism for the dead", we have to ask, "Why?"  Since the scriptures do not give a reason for it, we can safely ignore it.

A solid doctrine is one that doesn't violate the scriptures.  If someone presents a better case than mine, I am obliged to repent.  To be consistent, we have to drop the thought that one can receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ.

Gene,

The opposite of that logic is the Catholic Church.  Catholicism has long ago rejected the word of God in favor of her own man-made traditions.  Would I be safe in describing it like this?

1-Ignore the scripture in favor of some human tradition, then
2-Decide for themselves what it all means, then
3-Toss a coin as to whether their fairy tales are acceptable to God

On one end we have legalism, on the other we have fables.  Both ends are an abomination to God.  The answer is in the middle.  The answer is, "Thus saith the Lord".

If God has a requirement then our best bet is to learn what that requirement is and live by it.  We can decide for ourselves whether God intended to require it or not but that's and exercise in futility.  We can ignore the scriptures and adopt a comic book religion if we want.  God has given us all a choice.  But if God has revealed truth in His word and we choose comic books instead, we are accountable for that.  God is merciful but we receive His mercy on the basis of His word and conditions not on ours.

God's mercy is reserved for His people and His people alone. The rest are under the wrath of God.  God is the One who decides who belongs to Him.  All the rest are pretenders.  If God says that those who abide not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God then that's God's reality.  If you choose to believe otherwise and have the nerve to imply that that is acceptable to God then that is the height of arrogance.  You are usurping the authority of Jesus Christ who said to His apostles, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 18:18).

If you find it difficult to envision a God who insists on His doctrine alone then you don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with God.

Rob

I still am having an issue with the 2 types you are referencing here. I am not able to scriptural see your reference of what you see.

I know that the Holy Spirit  will indwell within us, and He will also act within or through us, examples are healing, speaking in tongues, ect.

But I am not seeing where you draw the line in these scriptures. I see the upper room as indwelling, also acting upon. Else Christ promise would not have been fulfilled, according to old testament example of Pentecost.

I will continue to pray through this, but from my view, it is still a play on words, or pulling something out of scripture  that just does not quite fit.

Your reference is from my understanding, is if you can "see" it, then it is not indwelling.  Could not the indwelling happen along side the miraculous??

It could, if the scriptures supported it.

Baptism isn't anything that I'm married to except the scriptures say, "Be baptized".  I'm not a machine, however, and so I have to ask, "Why be baptized".  The answer comes from John 7:39, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.

Somewhere in all that is the logic behind this "indwelling" doctrine.  You're a nerd like I am and so I thought the logic might appeal to you.

Let's assume that the indwelling happens along side the miraculous.  That would mean that everyone who has the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit would (obviously) also have the indwelling of the HS, right?

Not that is DOES, but rather COULD happen alongside.

So, no to your question...

everyone who has the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit would (obviously) also have the indwelling of the HS, right? NO.

One is an outer manifestation, that we can see, but this one can be mimicked, the miraculous

 The other is an inner manifestation, that sometimes does not manifest for a while, for it is a slow change of our inner thoughts. The indwelling

I however can not place the miraculous manifestation under the fruits, but I can place the indwelling manifestation under the fruits that we produce. If we try to place the miraculous under fruits, we have a problem with counterfeit fruit.

Whereas, the indwelling fruits, are developed over time, and can be seen in ones lives, if we watch long enough, we can see if a person trully has the indwelling, because he would not have love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: 

Will a new Christian have these? No, but a Christian that has the indwelling will start producing these fruits, not all at once, but it will be evident when we look at their lives.

I do see your logic, but I can not support it with scripture. I have known many "Christians" that have been baptized, but have never produced any of the fruits of the Spirit, they are still bitter, hateful, quick tempered, and mean.

So they could happen together but not necessarily.  Okay.  I don't like it but I'll accept it.

So, the "Why of baptism" is... what?

Peter said is was "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).  Peter AND Jesus said it was for our salvation (1 Pet. 3:21 and Mark 16:16).  Paul said it was a participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:2-4, Col. 2:12).  If we don't get baptized (i.e. immersed in water by the authority of Jesus Christ), can we receive remission of sins?  Can we be saved?  Can we die to sin or be raised to walk in newness of life, according to the scriptures?  In baptism, we "put on" (or clothe ourselves) with Christ and become heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:27).  According to the scriptures, can we become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ by any other means than by baptism into Christ?

If ALL these things happen at baptism then could it be possible that all these graces (remission of sins, death and resurrection, salvation from sin, adoption as sons) are the result of receiving a new and Holy Spirit?  The logic is there, it seems to me.

Ok, here is what happened to me. I became a Christian at around 16 years old. This is when I accepted Christ as my savior, and was baptized in the name of Christ (immersed). I was really on fire for Christ, but because the church I went to did not teach on the power of the Holy Ghost, I wavered, and was in and out of Christ. I rededicated my life probably about 14 times, was re-baptized about that many times too, for we moved a lot, and every church we joined wanted us to be baptized in their church, still in Christ name, and immersion in water.

Then in January 1st 1983, I received the Holy Spirit, by laying of hands. I did not start speaking in tongues until about 5 months later. since then, I still back slid, when I joined the Army, drank a whole lot, cussed a lot, but always kept praying, mainly for forgiveness. 

Then I started studying the bible  more, and started really reading it anew. 12 years ago, when I married my wife, I found a new life, a stronger relationship with Christ, although still kind of wishy-washy, but about 2 years ago, I really started a deep fellowship with Christ.

This all after receiving the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. But I understand now, that I am not under condemnation, and that my sins were forgiven 2009 years ago, all of them, past, and future.

So, did I get the indwelling when I first got baptized? No, because I was not taught about Him, if I had been going to a church that taught this, then I would have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Here is a question, why did not Philip tell the eunuch about the Holy Spirit when he baptized him, scripture does not record this, so did the eunuch receive it or not? We can only assume.......

Gary,

We can only assume that Acts 2:38 is correct and that the Ethiopian eunuch received the gift of the Holy Spirit at his baptism like everyone else.  There is no requirement that people teach us what the indwelling of the Holy Spirit means before we can receive it.

You received the indwelling of the Spirit at your baptism too (the first one).  The fact that you did not walk in that Spirit until a generation later does not nullify the promise of God.

When I started spinning out of control, I asked to be re-baptized too (which I was).  It didn't help a bit.  I still wound up destroying my life anyway.

In Romans 7, Paul describes the psychosis we experience when we try to walk out this life "in the flesh".  I think the quote is, "For I know there is nothing good that is in me (that is, in my flesh), for to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good, I find not."  I experienced this torture firsthand and it sounds like you did too.

It's not God's fault that we experience Romans 7.  God gave us everything we need to walk this thing out successfully.  The fact that we didn't know to use the life He gave us is our fault, not His.  And the fact that no one taught us about how to "walk in the Spirit" does not mean that God was not true to His word.

I'm tellin' ya, my theory cuts out alot of guess work.  I know for sure that I received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit back in 1974 because God's word is not sometimes Yes and sometimes No.  For no matter how many promises God has made, they are Yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:19-20).  If he said that at baptism, we receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, as far as I'm concerned, we can take that to the bank.

That's what you call, standing on the promises of God.  If, despite our circumstance, we can say, "God's word is truth", then that's really all God wants out of us.  My feelings don't dictate whether Acts 2:38 is true, Acts 2:38 dictates it.

Ok, so you say the indwelling is different than the power of the Holy Spirit?

For example, the power to walk in the spirit? Or to lay hands on the sick, to make them whole?

What does the indwelling do for us?

I think the power of the Spirit is part of the miraculous AND indwelling forms.  In fact, the REAL power is in saving us from our destructive tendencies.  That is only available from the indwelling of the Spirit.

Certainly the demonstration of power is part of the miraculous manifestation but healing a sick person pales in comparison to saving that person from his sins.

The power to walk in the Spirit is what you were getting at before - teaching.  Would I have been so confused as to want to be re-baptized if I had known about walking in the Spirit?  My life was failing and I didn't know why.  I knew that sin was eating my lunch but, like you, I was praying for forgiveness, reading my bible, and talking to people about Jesus.  I was active in the church but something was very wrong because I had lost my first love and the harder I tried to regain it, the more it alluded me.

I was, for all intents and purposes, a virgin when I joined the church.  But one of my sisters in Christ gave me a second look and one thing led to another and, well, you know...  Eventually she dumped me and I was devastated.   Suddenly, I was like a junkie looking for that first high again.  I started sleeping with one then another and I was out of control.  I prayed that prayer, "Dear God, please don't let her be pregnant.  I promise I won't do that again."  A couple weeks or a month later, I was at it again.

Church wastes alot of time exhorting people to behave themselves.  If we could behave ourselves we certainly would not need Jesus.  Although I read the bible, I didn't see anything wrong with making a promise to God ("I promise I won't do that again").  Jesus said, "Swear not at all".  We get all screwed up by thinking that we are righteous if we make a promise to God and keep it.  The bible says that we are not righteous until we believe God's promises to us.  Church is generally not helpful when it comes to things like that.  Their focus is on the stuff that doesn't matter at all or else it's on something that's totally not true.  Something happens to saved people when they collect as a church.

How do we communicate "walk in the Spirit" to people who haven't even got a handle on righteousness?  Most people think that righteousness is either a behavior or that it means "being right about your doctrine".  I must say, I tend toward that second flaw.

We must have the Spirit in order to belong to Christ but we must walk in that Spirit in order to keep from destroying our lives (as well as the lives of the people around us).  Unfortunately, the concept of "walking in the Spirit" is an advanced topic.  People in church tend to be too distracted by other stuff.  Walking in the Spirit seems too pie-in-the-sky or whatever.

The indwelling of the Spirit of God is the power to overcome sin in our lives.  Romans 6 tells us that when we are raised out of the waters of baptism that we have a new life.  I understand this to mean that we have received a new Spirit, which is able to rise above our life dominating issues. Because of this new life (this new Spirit), sin does not have dominion over us.

Rob

Rob: you said-- In fact, the REAL power is in saving us from our destructive tendencies

This is the answer I was looking for.... The indwelling saves us from ourselves. It is the indwelling that does the internal changes.

But as to getting this indwelling at Baptism, then why did it take a whole generation to manifest the internal changes. This is why I lean more towards receiving the indwelling when another believer lays hands on and we are then "baptized" in the spirit.

Because at the end of your reply you said:  The indwelling of the Spirit of God is the power to overcome sin in our lives.

I evidently had not power over sin, because it still swayed me, and beat me against every wall it could find.

I look back at my life, and I can actually see a place in my history that shows a change in behavior, and it was not at my initial baptism.

I still have sin, but just not as much, nor as often, and I have a lower desire to do those things that gave me pleasure in the past.

 I am re-reading your reply, as I type this, and I see that you mentioned walking in the spirit, maybe that is what was lacking, I don't know. Will keep praying on this though.

I honestly think that I could have avoided alot of confusion if they had taught me about walking in the Spirit from the outset.

Christians get sick and die of horrible diseases.  Why?  Maybe Jesus just healed a few of us and left the rest sick.  Maybe God wants us sick sometimes in order to teach us patience (or whatever).

The "Health and Wellness Gospel" insists that Jesus healed us all 2000 years ago.  According to that interpretation we don't have to get sick and if we do get sick then we don't have to die sick.  That interpretation requires an adjustment in how you view the sacrifice at Calvary.

Christians get sick die sick because they either never heard the Health and Wellness Gospel or, if they have, they don't believe it.   They figure, "You gotta die of something".  And it is true that "it is afforded unto man once to die" but it doesn't say he has to die sick.  Why not "natural causes"?  Why not "He gave up the ghost"?

Americans can't die of natural causes anymore because the new American religion, the medical establishment, doesn't believe in dying that way.  When I die, my heart will stop beating.  The coroner will put on the death certificate, "Cause of death: Heart attack".  In our society you have to die of something.  American Christianity has accepted that as the truth and as a result, they conclude that everyone dies of disease.

My point is that God's reality is not always our reality.  We belong to Jesus if we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9).  But if we don't walk by that Spirit we will never achieve victory over sin.  My lack of victory is not an indication that God didn't hold up His end of the bargain.  I seriously doubt that Christians who do not walk by the Spirit will go to heaven.  But that does not make them any less our brothers and sisters.  They have the same Spirit we have, they're just not walking in that Spirit.

We have hope in this life.  While we are still in the body, there is hope.  But as soon as we die, hope stops.  Lucky people like you and me learned somehow that to walk in the Spirit is to walk in victory but most Christians never learn that lesson.  In my judgment, that is "burying your talent".

The church of Christ is the only denomination that can tell you how to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit according to the scriptures.  All the rest are guessing and wondering.  Unfortunately, although we are successful in teaching how to receive the Spirit, we are miserable failures in communicating how to live by that Spirit.  Most church of Christ folks wind up disenchanted shells who are doing their best for a God who doesn't care all that much for them.  It's sad, man.

Most members of the church of Christ, although they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit according to the scriptures will wind up in eternal torment for not using the gift they were given.  And, it's sad to say, that's my fault.   I am a member of the church and I know the secret.  I need to get good at communicating that secret so that my brethren don't wind up in hell.

Unfortunately, the last thing they want is to listen to a guy like me.  You've seen some of my venom in print, here on MyChurch.  That's kinda how it's been between me and the church since God saved me again.  I come off sounding like a big-mouth know-it-all.  Hard to believe, I know ;)

Rob

But, according to what you have been writing earlier, everyone that has been baptized (immersed in water) has the indwelling of the Spirit.

you just wrote:  I seriously doubt that Christians who do not walk by the Spirit will go to heaven. 

So is it being baptized that gets you to heaven, or walking in the Spirit?

you also wrote: although they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit according to the scriptures will wind up in eternal torment for not using the gift they were given.

So, is it by faith, or our acting upon that faith?

Like healing, you cannot walk in it if you don't know about it.  I received the gift of the Holy Spirit when I was baptized in water back in 1974 (per Acts 2:38).  But I didn't start walking in that Spirit until just recently.

I'm sure that in those days, I'd brushed up against the Holy Spirit a few times but you can't decide to walk in something you don't know about.  The Holy Spirit was (and is) mine but, back then, I didn't use it.  Healing was mine too but I didn't use it; I got sick like everybody else.

But just because I wasn't using these benefits does not indicate that God was withholding them from me.  God operates by His word.  He wants us to walk in the fullness of His kingdom but we are the ones who limit what He can do.  All these graces are activated by faith - not faith of the mind but faith of the heart.  If we don't know about these graces we can't believe God for them.  If we know about them but refuse to believe for them then we're as bad off as if we didn't know about them.

The mainstream church of Christ knows about the gifts of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.) but she refuses to believe God for them.  Therefore, although she may be saved and going to heaven, she cannot operate in what God has freely given.

You wrote: "So, is it by faith, or our acting upon that faith?"

Salvation is by grace through faith.  But we have to believe we're saved the way God said we are saved otherwise we're going to hell.  We can't believe in a myth or a fantasy and expect that to be God's reality.  If our faith does not line up with the doctrine of the word, we're doomed.  Catholicism believes whatever fairytale that comes out of Vatican City and expects that to be God's reality.  That's a bunch of hooey.

I don't care if it's the pope, Joseph Smith, Jimmy Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, or Alexander Campbell.  If what's being taught does not line up with the word of God then it's not of God.

Acts 2:38 says that, at baptism, we receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  A simple reading of the text shows that it says just that.  If you believe it then you are righteous.  If you don't believe it then you got some 'splainin' to do.  Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness.  Faith righteousness is God's righteousness.  Acting on our faith has nothing to do with whether God imputes righteousness to us.  Abraham did not act on his faith before God imputed righteousness to him and anybody who says that he did does not know the scriptures.

We are saved by grace but only if we believe it.  If we don't believe it then we are obliged to act - our salvation depends on it.  The only problem is that if we believe we have to act in order to be saved then we do not believe God who said that we are saved by grace through faith.  If we don't believe God then we cannot have God's righteousness.

This is why baptism cannot be a "work" that we do (as is taught by MANY Protestant denominations).  If it were then baptism would violate other clear passages of scripture.  Enter Colossians 2:12 - Baptism is our faith in the operation of God.  God's the One operating; all we're doing is having faith.  If Colossians 2:12 did not exist then I'd have a more difficult time proving what I just wrote.

Consistent theology is theology that it doesn't violate scripture.  "Saved by grace through faith" is scripture and so is "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".  Reconciling the two takes a little skill but not much.

Rob

Yes, I agree totally, with this,

Consistent theology is theology that it doesn't violate scripture.  "Saved by grace through faith" is scripture and so is "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".  Reconciling the two takes a little skill but not much.

I am seeing where you are coming from on the indwelling of the Spirit at baptism

But to get off subject a little here,

There are also scriptures that say a woman is saved by giving child birth.

Taken out of context, I have heard preachers say that the women will be saved from death and torment of child birth, but if read in context, Paul says that women should be silent, because the woman Eve was deceived, not Adam. And she would be saved in childbearing??? So is this a cultural thing?? 

And then we have 2nd Peter

So how does this fit in, was I better off not knowing Him, when I slipped back into the world?

 And then of course we can not leave out:

So, how do we fit these in, is anyone that has ever spoken  against, or blasphemed the Holy Spirit ( blasphemy, evil speaking, railing) bound to hell? Does this include those that say speaking in tongues is of the devil, or that God no longer heals?

Gary,

I used to be one of those who said that speaking in tongues is of the devil.  That is pretty much the official stance of the mainstream church of Christ.  I honestly believe that because I was such a blasphemer that God turned me over to Satan so that I would learn not to blaspheme.

People who blaspheme the Holy Spirit tend not to repent of that sin.  I'm an exception.  Of course, I'm saved and baptized in the Holy Ghost.  Since God saved me again I've become a tongue talkin' Pentecostal.  Thank you, Jesus!

I honestly think that people who backslide will pay a stiffer penalty in the next world than people who never heard the gospel.  My mother was a Catholic all her life and so she had never heard the gospel of Christ.  If I had not repented and I had died in my sins, my punishment would have been greater than hers.  Don't get me wrong.  She was a nice lady and loved God, Jesus, Mary and the saints but unfortunately she was never saved - according to the scriptures.

Regarding the "saved in childbearing" scripture:  There's a good discussion of this on www.GastonCogdell.com.  I'll see if I can find it and give you a heads-up.

Gary,

About 20-minutes into this mp3 file is a discussion of "Baptism for the dead".  See what you think.

"http://www.gastoncogdell.com/AudioTeachings/1979-09-02 (PM) Gaston Cogdell - Questions and Answers.mp3"

Rob

I found it.  Here's the discussion of "saved in childbearing".

"http://www.gastoncogdell.com/AudioTeachings/1979-10-14 (PM) Gaston Cogdell - Questions and Answers.mp3"

It's about 13 minutes and 15 seconds into it.

Gary,

If you use Media Player, you can click to the 20-minute mark or whatever.  You don't have to listen to the whole thing (although some of his answers to the other questions are pretty good too).

Rob

That's that stupid FireFox.  It has the defaults set to QuickTime.  It also loads up some kind of download manager so that you have to download the whole swingin' file before you can play it.  Internet Explorer will start playing an MP3 immediately.

FireFox is pretty perfect except for that annoying download manager popup. 

gaston 10-14 /// 13 min - 15 min is about fasting

gaston 9-2  /// he is taking it out of context too, where in the chapter is he making an argument for resurrection?? he is pulling info from his rear-end. it sounds good, but not in context!

Oops.  Sorry.  I told you to go to the wrong Questions and Answers mp3.

"http://www.gastoncogdell.com/AudioTeachings/1979-10-28 (PM) Gaston Cogdell - Questions and Answers.mp3"

At the 13:15 point, he talks about "saved in childbearing".

Regarding the other MP3: 1 Cor. 15 has much to do with the resurrection of the dead.  In fact, the gospel is base, in part, on the resurrection of the dead.

Nobody can really say, with any certainty, what "baptism for the dead" is referring to but it would be very odd if a person could be saved after death.

A lot of religions have a "second chance" doctrine. To Catholics, it's called purgatory.  Hindu's call it reincarnation.  There's no clear teaching in the bible to support a second chance doctrine.  In fact, such doctrines tend to run contrary to many clear teachings in the scriptures about getting your doctrine right in this life. 

Oh, I know nobody can say for sure what is meant, because not much is written about it, but to start guessing, and calling it fact is wrong too.

As to a second chance,I guess if baptism is that important, it would be a second chance to get saved. 

But enough about that I guess, since it would all be just speculation....

I do however like what you say about the importance of baptism, and do see it more important that I did prior to this discussion.

I love you, Gar-dude.

God's mercy is abundant and we get a second-chance every moment of our lives.  

Thanks Bro, you too.

Gar-dude.... I like that (hehe)... my nickname growing up was Gar-bo