What became of the NT pattern of two baptisms?

[Nehemiah6]

The order of the baptisms can go either way.

That is not correct. The order in Scripture is first conversion, then baptism.

The outpouring at Pentecost - Acts chapter two - AFTER

BEFORE. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized...
"Gladly received his word" = believed the Gospel = were saved = received the Holy Spirit

The believers in Samaria - Acts 8:14-17 - AFTER

BEFORE. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
"Believed Philip" = believed the Gospel = were saved = received the Holy Spirit

The disciples in Ephesus - Acts chapter nineteen - AFTER

BEFORE. ...that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
"That they should believe on Him" = believed the Gospel = were saved = received the Holy Spirit.

After that Paul his hands upon them. This was not usual, and it was to enable them to speak in tongues and prophesy. It could be because before this they had not heard of the Holy Ghost and they needed to witness the power of the Spirit.

 

[Waggles]

Which baptism do you believe is required to be saved.

Jesus and the Apostles clearly and unequivocally preach that a believer MUST be baptised [plunged, immersed] in
water AND the Holy Spirit.
When we read Acts and the epistles to the Spirit-filled church this is consistently upheld and referred to as the
doctrinal standard.
One baptism doctrinally with two components - water and Spirit.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Jesus and the Apostles clearly and unequivocally preach that a believer MUST be baptised [plunged, immersed] in
water AND the Holy Spirit.
When we read Acts and the epistles to the Spirit-filled church this is consistently upheld and referred to as the
doctrinal standard.
One baptism doctrinally with two components - water and Spirit.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:

Paul said there was one baptism not two

And no one said we had to be baptised into the holy spirit, it says we must be baptized into jesus, his death and his burial, which is an act accomplished by the HS.

 

[Sketch]

I just wanted to get to the point, and we have and I thak you

Well your wrong

If you are not baptised by God, your not saved, You have not been washed, You have not been placed into union with Chrst, You have not been placed into his death and burial. Your still dead in your sin

Baptism o the spirit is an act of God. Not a personal dicision. Where did you come up with. That?

We are talking about two different things.
When I talk about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, I am speaking about it from my perspective, not yours.
Then you come back to criticize me for what I am saying, as if I am talking about what you define.
We are talking about two different things.

 

[breno785au]

This is a fairly interesting event...

As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! There’s some water! Why can’t I be baptized?” He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
Acts of the Apostles 8:36‭, ‬38 NLT

The moment he saw water he wanted to be baptised, clearly there was no argument from Philip.

 

[Waggles]

And no one said we had to be baptised into the holy spirit, it says we must be baptized into jesus, his death and his burial, which is an act accomplished by the HS.

My goodness … some people just don't get it.

 

[Endoscopy]

What has become of this early church pattern of two baptisms?
I see two baptisms as the pattern established by the new testament church.

The Two Baptisms:
1) Water Baptism
2) The Baptism with the Holy Spirit
Not always in this order.

Seven examples of the established two baptism pattern:
A) Prophesied by John the Baptist - Matt.3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33
B) Prophesied by Christ - Acts 1:5
C) The outpouring at Pentecost - Acts chapter two
D) The believers in Samaria - Acts 8:14-17
E) Saul’s Conversion - Acts 9:17-19
F) The house of Cornelius - Acts chapters ten and eleven
G) The disciples in Ephesus - Acts chapter nineteen

Somehow this pattern of two baptisms was not included in the Creeds of the Church,
nor included as standard doctrine. Why was it omitted?
Especially with the clear pattern we see in the scriptures listed above.

The problem is there are denominations that went overboard about the second baptism. They became known as the holy rollers. If a member of their congregation didn't have a big outward manifestation they were not considered to have the second one. Therefore too many faked it.

 

[Sketch]

The problem is there are denominations that went overboard about the second baptism. They became known as the holy rollers. If a member of their congregation didn't have a big outward manifestation they were not considered to have the second one. Therefore too many faked it.

You have a point in terms of problems with modern movements, but that has little to do with why the pattern of two baptism that we see established quite clearly in the NT was lost within a few centuries after the church was formed.

 

[Absolutely]

the water being spoken of is not water baptism........it is from the physical birth.......the breaking of the mothers water........sorry........

One Baptism unto salvation........Holy Spirit baptism..........water baptism is simply a witness of the Holy Spirit baptism. Does nothing for salvation......unless, of course, you believe in works Salvation I suppose

Jesus was alredy saved when he was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Likewise several in acts were saved and later recieved the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.
No where is anyone saved through the laying on of hands.
Salvation is normally first. Baptism in the Holy Spirit afterwards.

But those without that experience either want it,or seek to disenfranchise.
I recieved it back in 1977 which was kinda on the tail end of the charismatic movement.
It was an awesome,awesome ride.
So many churches caught fire and blazed with His presence and power.

What a feast of fire it was.

 

[Absolutely]

The problem is there are denominations that went overboard about the second baptism. They became known as the holy rollers. If a member of their congregation didn't have a big outward manifestation they were not considered to have the second one. Therefore too many faked it.

I have been in thousands of charismatic meetings.
Seen very few fakes.
But penticostal meetings are another story.

Videos normally fail to capture the anointing.

Had i not been there,i may have jumped on the disenfranchise train

 

[Absolutely]

You have a point in terms of problems with modern movements, but that has little to do with why the pattern of two baptism that we see established quite clearly in the NT was lost within a few centuries after the church was formed.

God responds to hunger.
The satisfied need not apply

 

[Absolutely]

Acts 8
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

2 very clear obvious baptisms.

Either resist it,or go for it.
You will be ruined for this world and religion
LOL

 

[eternally-gratefull]

My goodness … some people just don't get it.

Yeah your right they don’t.

Anyway thanks, You have not given me any reason to change my view.. Which has strengthened me

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Two baptisms? Never was two baptisms.
When you are born again.......IF you are born again.......the Holy Spirit resides in you. Nothing held back.
The apostles had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.........it was the empowerment to preach that the Spirit stirred in them during that feast of the harvest. And what a harvest!

 

[garee]

Jesus and the Apostles clearly and unequivocally preach that a believer MUST be baptised [plunged, immersed] in
water AND the Holy Spirit.
When we read Acts and the epistles to the Spirit-filled church this is consistently upheld and referred to as the
doctrinal standard.
One baptism doctrinally with two components - water and Spirit.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:

The key to understanding the baptism in question in John 3:25 has it foundation in old testament ceremonial law . Like tongues its foundation (Isaiah 28) If those old testament foundations are destroyed how could ever come to the conclusion of the author?

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John3:25

Why were they question the authority of Jesus to baptize, the baptism of John. It would seem to be a good place to start looking for a foundation?. What's there to fear? The new innovation that water remits the eternal wage of sin?

 

[Sipsey]

Did someone actually say, “Jesus was already saved?” As if He was merely a man?

I declare! Well until people who are arguing can agree on definitions and terms, they will never agree on anything.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The key to understanding the baptism in question in John 3:25 has it foundation in old testament ceremonial law . Like tongues its foundation (Isaiah 28) If those old testament foundations are destroyed how could ever come to the conclusion of the author?

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John3:25

Why were they question the authority of Jesus to baptize, the baptism of John. It would seem to be a good place to start looking for a foundation?. What's there to fear? The new innovation that water remits the eternal wage of sin?

The word baptise is not used in vs 25. Was this a typo?

 

[garee]

The word baptise is not used in vs 25. Was this a typo?

Not sure what you are referring to? If its not the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. What was the question in regard to purifying ?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not sure what you are referring to? If its not the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. What was the question in regard to?

John 3:25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification.

Where is the word Baptize?

 

[garee]

John 3:25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification.

Where is the word Baptize?

The context is found in verse 26, John's answer in 27.

And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.John3:26-27


Why would a person from the tribe of Judah perform the ceremony as if he was from the tribe of Levi like John?