What did Jesus mean?
- Thread starter HillyBilly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They are both ordinances...
A symbolic action representing faith in something that they once represented.
The problem is that don't represent the meaning anymore.
Look at all the discussion and disagreement about the function of Baptism.
Do you even know what circumcision represented for the Jews? Why Moses almost died over not circumcising his son's? Versus Paul telling the Galatians it was now worthless?
It has become an empty tradition without understanding or affect.
A symbolic action representing faith in something that they once represented.
The problem is that don't represent the meaning anymore.
Look at all the discussion and disagreement about the function of Baptism.
Do you even know what circumcision represented for the Jews? Why Moses almost died over not circumcising his son's? Versus Paul telling the Galatians it was now worthless?
It has become an empty tradition without understanding or affect.
Honestly I'm not that concerned about what circumcision represents to the Jews. Sorry if that makes me a bad person, I just don't see how it helps me live a life in Christ.
Circumcision is a symbolic action performed on human flesh; baptism is much more. It's a spiritual experience that transforms a person. It's a work of God on the spirit not a work of man on the flesh.
I know you'll disagree, that's just my view of it.
Circumcision is a symbolic action performed on human flesh; baptism is much more. It's a spiritual experience that transforms a person. It's a work of God on the spirit not a work of man on the flesh.
I know you'll disagree, that's just my view of it.
I would refer you to Eph 4: 4-6 " There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
You almost got it right. The three baptisms are Baptism in the Name of the Father who chooses you and you repent and turn to Him, Baptism in the Name of the Son when you put your trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and Baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit when you receive the Holy Spirit of God who perfects us by filling our hearts with love so that we can fulfill the Spirit of the Law. There is really only one baptism ( Baptism in the Name of the Father) because once you are baptized in His name, you will certainly be baptized in the Name of the Son and His Holy Spirit. Christ is our Lord, our Savior, and our God, but the Father through His Spirit communicates His will, makes us part of the body of Christ and we become adopted children of the Father. The Father is the one God of all, who is above all (including Christ), and His Spirit and eternal life is in His Son and therefore in us.
In the Acts 19: 1-6 Paul meets disciples of John who were baptized by him with water to signify their repentance for their sins. They were baptized in the name of the Father when they repented and not when they went through the ceremony with water. In verse 5, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus when Jesus was explained to them and in the name of the Holy Spirit when they received the Holy Spirit.
You almost got it right. The three baptisms are Baptism in the Name of the Father who chooses you and you repent and turn to Him, Baptism in the Name of the Son when you put your trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and Baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit when you receive the Holy Spirit of God who perfects us by filling our hearts with love so that we can fulfill the Spirit of the Law. There is really only one baptism ( Baptism in the Name of the Father) because once you are baptized in His name, you will certainly be baptized in the Name of the Son and His Holy Spirit. Christ is our Lord, our Savior, and our God, but the Father through His Spirit communicates His will, makes us part of the body of Christ and we become adopted children of the Father. The Father is the one God of all, who is above all (including Christ), and His Spirit and eternal life is in His Son and therefore in us.
In the Acts 19: 1-6 Paul meets disciples of John who were baptized by him with water to signify their repentance for their sins. They were baptized in the name of the Father when they repented and not when they went through the ceremony with water. In verse 5, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus when Jesus was explained to them and in the name of the Holy Spirit when they received the Holy Spirit.
This phrase "via water baptism" is an assumption you need to justify contextually.
The wording is very clear. The Holy Spirit is the one doing the baptizing...and Christ is what we are baptized into.
This verse (1 Cor 12:13) and its context tell us that this event of being baptized into Christ is the event that makes us one with the rest of the body and enables us to "drink from one Spirit" (John 4, 8, Eph 2). We do not "drink of one Spirit" before He indwells us.
Again, much of this is circular reasoning. You are assuming several passages are about water baptism to "prove" that water baptism justifies the paradigm you're presenting.
I have only identified 2 baptism events in the book of Acts: the Ethiopian Eunuch (Act 8) and Lydia's household (Act 16). The rest are spirit baptisms (not to be confused with "baptism of the holy spirit").
To say the rest are water baptisms is a mere assumption and denies the salvation of the thief on the cross and others who had faith without water baptism.
There's a difference between what believers usually do surrounding their conversion experience and the requirement for conversion. Assumptions that extend beyond soteriological passages will lead to assumptions about the baptism passages that don't mention water.
Fact- The disciples received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).
Fact- Cornelius and his men received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (Acts 10:47).
Fact- Water baptism is a different event than the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).
Fact- The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is synonymous with being "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4).
Fact- The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit more than once (Acts 4:31).
Fact- People who are already saved are commanded to continually be filled with the spirit (Eph 5:18).
From these facts and their contexts, receiving the Holy Spirit happens when someone first genuinely believes. Water baptism comes after receiving the Holy Spirit. And the baptism of the Holy Spirit (also called "filled with the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:4) can happen simultaneously or after the first two.
The wording is very clear. The Holy Spirit is the one doing the baptizing...and Christ is what we are baptized into.
This verse (1 Cor 12:13) and its context tell us that this event of being baptized into Christ is the event that makes us one with the rest of the body and enables us to "drink from one Spirit" (John 4, 8, Eph 2). We do not "drink of one Spirit" before He indwells us.
Again, much of this is circular reasoning. You are assuming several passages are about water baptism to "prove" that water baptism justifies the paradigm you're presenting.
I have only identified 2 baptism events in the book of Acts: the Ethiopian Eunuch (Act 8) and Lydia's household (Act 16). The rest are spirit baptisms (not to be confused with "baptism of the holy spirit").
To say the rest are water baptisms is a mere assumption and denies the salvation of the thief on the cross and others who had faith without water baptism.
There's a difference between what believers usually do surrounding their conversion experience and the requirement for conversion. Assumptions that extend beyond soteriological passages will lead to assumptions about the baptism passages that don't mention water.
Fact- The disciples received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).
Fact- Cornelius and his men received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (Acts 10:47).
Fact- Water baptism is a different event than the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).
Fact- The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is synonymous with being "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4).
Fact- The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit more than once (Acts 4:31).
Fact- People who are already saved are commanded to continually be filled with the spirit (Eph 5:18).
From these facts and their contexts, receiving the Holy Spirit happens when someone first genuinely believes. Water baptism comes after receiving the Holy Spirit. And the baptism of the Holy Spirit (also called "filled with the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:4) can happen simultaneously or after the first two.
I'm not quite sure what aspect of my comments you are touching on.
In the context of Eph 4, there is one baptism that makes us one with the body. It doesn't mean there is only one baptism the believer undergoes. period. There are 3 baptisms the believer may undergo, as explained in this previous post and others I have written:
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-did-jesus-mean.204474/page-7#post-4799377
I have already pointed out in other posts how many mentions of "baptism" in the NT do not refer to water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I didn't bring up the subject. Someone else made the claim that certain passages are about water baptism. I have merely been responding to their claim.
In the context of Eph 4, there is one baptism that makes us one with the body. It doesn't mean there is only one baptism the believer undergoes. period. There are 3 baptisms the believer may undergo, as explained in this previous post and others I have written:
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-did-jesus-mean.204474/page-7#post-4799377
I have already pointed out in other posts how many mentions of "baptism" in the NT do not refer to water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I didn't bring up the subject. Someone else made the claim that certain passages are about water baptism. I have merely been responding to their claim.
Not only that; but Nicodemus had just said "what am I supposed to do, jump in my mother's womb and be born again?" (my paraphrase, obviously)... and then afterward Jesus says "flesh is born of flesh and spirit is born of spirit". So, clearly physical birth is part of their discussion. It looks like to me that Jesus was just explaining that the second birth is a spiritual birth. He didn't say "spirit is born of water and the spirit" he said "but spirit is born of the spirit"
-
1
- Show all
1) Baptism of fire, 2)baptism by the Spirit (He sets us in the body), 3)baptism of the Spirit (we receive power), 4)baptism in water
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the 3)Holy Spirit and 1)fire”
"For 2)by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..."
Water should be obvious
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the 3)Holy Spirit and 1)fire”
"For 2)by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..."
Water should be obvious
A common error is to equate the tongues of fire seen over the disciples with the baptism of fire. Remember, baptism is immersion not simply something to be seen as a sign.
Peter addresses the fire thus: "And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke." It was a sign of the fulfillment of Joel.
Trials are baptisms of fire. Proof is not merely evidence. A proof is a standard.
Peter wrote: "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ..."
and
"But the God of all grace, who has called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you."
Gold and precious metals are commonly refined within fire. This was a common theme in the OT prophets:
"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."
"I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is My people’;
And each one will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’ ”
"But he knows the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold."
A trial at the hand of the Father is evidence of sonship and of being God's child:
“My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.” Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
Discipline is not punishment. Discipline is narrowing, refining into a known state. Suffering is required for obedience.
As an aside: the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is power, not tongues of fire. The appearance of fire was also a connection to Sinai, when the Lord descended upon the mountain in fire. Here, the Spirit descended upon the people with the sign of fire. Remember, the witness was to the Jews who saw them.
Peter addresses the fire thus: "And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke." It was a sign of the fulfillment of Joel.
Trials are baptisms of fire. Proof is not merely evidence. A proof is a standard.
Peter wrote: "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ..."
and
"But the God of all grace, who has called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you."
Gold and precious metals are commonly refined within fire. This was a common theme in the OT prophets:
"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."
"I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is My people’;
And each one will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’ ”
"But he knows the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold."
A trial at the hand of the Father is evidence of sonship and of being God's child:
“My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.” Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
Discipline is not punishment. Discipline is narrowing, refining into a known state. Suffering is required for obedience.
As an aside: the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is power, not tongues of fire. The appearance of fire was also a connection to Sinai, when the Lord descended upon the mountain in fire. Here, the Spirit descended upon the people with the sign of fire. Remember, the witness was to the Jews who saw them.
-
2
- Show all
I like what I'm hearing. This makes so much sense. I've always wondered exactly what that meant. This agrees with the ongoing nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit too. It also explains why we need to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Wow.
I'm going to research this further when I have more time after school. Thank you for this.
I'm going to research this further when I have more time after school. Thank you for this.
-
1
- Show all
I would call it a common interpretation. Whether it is an error or not is a matter of opinion.
The baptism of fire could be the judgment of fire mentioned in the same context. The context gives this great reason for such an interpretation.
Why insert trials here. There is less reason to apply trials of fire here than there is to think of the tongues of flame at pentecost.
The only reason I wonder whether it means fire as in spiritual power is because the tongues of flame and because the Greek says that the same person will be baptized in the Spirit and with Fire.
It does not say that he will baptize some with the Spirit and some with fire. That is an interpretation, howbeit a natural one based on context.
The Greek suggests that You will be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and Fire, which then makes your idea of trials at least a possible form of spiritual fire that the one baptized in the Holy Spirit would also experience, but I would think that the tongues of flame are more persuasive as to the actual fulfilment of this prophesy.
When did it occur that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire? On the day of Pentecost as witnessed by the tongues of flame. This will continue to be discussed by scholars but I find it easy to rule out trials, and purifying fire as it does not fit the context.
It is either judgment which I can see from the context (in which case he means some will be baptized in the Spirit and others will be baptized with fire in judgment but there is a problem with that if the Greek is taken literally since the Greek scholars say it means the same person will be baptized in both) or it means spiritual power for service type of fire. If one thinks he can spiritualize the fire to be trials because of other texts in the bible, then one can spiritualize the fire as the kind of fire seen over them on the day of Pentecost.
Now in real life scenarios I have seen many who have gone from a mediocre Christian to one of great soul winning zeal after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues. This leads me to believe that the fire is a spiritual fire of power for service and witness. And that fire will see you through trials of fire as well. Since they were bold to preach the word even under persecution and trials of fire after the filling of the Holy Spirit and Fire.
A baptism of the fire of judgment is coming upon the world so that also is true even if that was not the meaning of that text. We know that the world will melt with fervent heat and the very elements will be dissolved.
Lots of fires in the bible. I want to be on fire for God.
The baptism of fire could be the judgment of fire mentioned in the same context. The context gives this great reason for such an interpretation.
Why insert trials here. There is less reason to apply trials of fire here than there is to think of the tongues of flame at pentecost.
The only reason I wonder whether it means fire as in spiritual power is because the tongues of flame and because the Greek says that the same person will be baptized in the Spirit and with Fire.
It does not say that he will baptize some with the Spirit and some with fire. That is an interpretation, howbeit a natural one based on context.
The Greek suggests that You will be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and Fire, which then makes your idea of trials at least a possible form of spiritual fire that the one baptized in the Holy Spirit would also experience, but I would think that the tongues of flame are more persuasive as to the actual fulfilment of this prophesy.
When did it occur that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire? On the day of Pentecost as witnessed by the tongues of flame. This will continue to be discussed by scholars but I find it easy to rule out trials, and purifying fire as it does not fit the context.
It is either judgment which I can see from the context (in which case he means some will be baptized in the Spirit and others will be baptized with fire in judgment but there is a problem with that if the Greek is taken literally since the Greek scholars say it means the same person will be baptized in both) or it means spiritual power for service type of fire. If one thinks he can spiritualize the fire to be trials because of other texts in the bible, then one can spiritualize the fire as the kind of fire seen over them on the day of Pentecost.
Now in real life scenarios I have seen many who have gone from a mediocre Christian to one of great soul winning zeal after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues. This leads me to believe that the fire is a spiritual fire of power for service and witness. And that fire will see you through trials of fire as well. Since they were bold to preach the word even under persecution and trials of fire after the filling of the Holy Spirit and Fire.
A baptism of the fire of judgment is coming upon the world so that also is true even if that was not the meaning of that text. We know that the world will melt with fervent heat and the very elements will be dissolved.
Lots of fires in the bible. I want to be on fire for God.