swathdiver

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    4,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About swathdiver

  • Rank
    Surrendered
  • Birthday February 15

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Treasure Coast
  • Interests
    Being a Godly Husband/Parent, Making a God-Fearing Family, Bible Doctrines, Soul Winning, Talkin' Bible, Black Powder Shooting/Hunting, Fishing, Rocketry.
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    swathdiver

Uncategorized

  • Bio
    A wretch saved by amazing grace, June 13, 2007.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,099 profile views
  1. Just plain scary! Wicked scary!
  2. No, the Bride or Body is made up of every Local, Visible, New Testament Church, not individuals. It is the individual Christians that make up each local, visible, New Testament Church. At the wedding, there will be many Christians standing with John the Baptists as guests, these are the folks who are saved but were not members of biblical New Testament Churches. Such may consist of the Catholic lady who got saved at a Billy Graham revival but never left her church, or the rock-n-roller who got saved at a Calvary Chapel and kept on attending until his ascension.
  3. My sentiments exactly Brother Stafford. I was a political junkie for many years until about 2011 and then put my time and effort on things on high at the leading of the Holy Spirit. Those are things that bear fruit, not watching the news or radio talking heads every day and night. None of them care for the things of God, and that's the folks on our side! BUT! Like Brother Jim explains, we must occupy until he comes. We should support our leaders when they honor God and call them out on it when they sin against God. We should pray for them continually. I've prayed for President Obama's salvation since he became President; sadly the devil is in total control of that fellow, I doubt he's ever heard a biblical gospel presentation as he's always surrounded by communists and muhammadens. Trump hasn't a clue about the things of God but he does love this country and doesn't want to turn it into a communist state for the globalists to continue sucking dry. I believe you too are correct in not voting for such a man who is an enemy to God but you can pray for him to honor God through his deeds and pray for his salvation. In such a short time we have become a remnant in this once great nation. As in the days before the flood, it seems America's citizens' thoughts are only evil continually. Since Obama's election, I have not been able to bring myself to fly the stars and stripes at my home anymore. We've flown our state flag and George Washington's Cruiser's flag mostly and rarely the older national ensigns before they had fifty stars.
  4. I'm not sure of all the laws up there but the school should not be subservient to the government. When they accept $2.5 million from the government, it always comes with devilish strings attached. Don't take their money, let the Lord provide. Don't waiver either, ever, never!
  5. Yeah, that church that they say didn't exist until Pentecost!
  6. In our local church, the members sing 2 hymns at the beginning of service followed by announcements and a special or two and a final hymn by the congregation. For each service on the Lord's Day, the choir is seated and sings along with the congregation but they open the service with a short song before the church joins in. At the end of service, during the invitation, the congregations sings a line or two or three from "Jesus Paid It All" for example. Ours is blessed with many pianists and organ players and many beautiful voices all lead by our beloved music director.
  7. Calvary Chapel from its inception has been part of the ecumenical one world religion. It was NEVER one of Jesus Christ's New Testament Churches. It was not begun scripturally, it was run by heathens like Lonnie Frisbee who made the churches popular through the pop/rock music culture, not the Word of God. It aligns itself and legitimizes the Catholic Church, thereby being a harlot of the whore of Revelations 17, the Babylonian religion. Come out from her and be ye separate Roger.
  8. Just another lame excuse to keep the world in the spotlight and the things of God away, far away from his darkened heart. If I were in your shoes, I'd witness to them, share the Gospel and let them "Christians" know that livin' together is a sin against God and they ought to get right with the Lord about it right quick. Then I wouldn't tarry long until deciding to leave lest anyone think I condone such behavior and hurt my testimony. If you have children, they may see that you think it's (fornicatin') alright by your refusal to separate from the presence of evil. I worked for two different men over the years who began to cheat on their wives, I resigned quickly. I worked for a man who was a professing Christian but loved the things of the world more than the things of God, he had no salvation testimony and made fun of my faith, I resigned quickly. Either my boss is a genuine believer or I work for myself, no more heathens. Course, my ultimate boss is Jesus Christ!
  9. Most of us have beat this horse dead a number of times here over the years. It is wrong to Christianize worldly music that does not follow the Lord's constructs of music. It is wrong to adapt CCM pop/rock into Christ-honoring music for even the associations themselves should be shunned. Because Pensacola Christian College and Lancaster Baptist College have and are using adapted CCM songs in their services, it has caused grief in my household. Brother Chappell has been a blessing to my family and wish he would stop this practice in his ministry.
  10. “The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.” - Proverbs 10:8 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” - 1 Corinthians 1:18 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." - John 14:26 1st Corinthians 12, the entire chapter explains it all to a submissive and teachable heart. Those universalists look at just verse 13 and forget the rest or redefine what they're looking at. Either way, they gotta be saved by the blood of the lamb first of all, and then submissive to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
  11. You're welcome! Tried to post each article separately but the forum combined them for some reason.
  12. Do you actually dive?

  13. http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_029.html Water or Spirit Baptism? (2) 1 Cor. 12:13 Doug Hammett In our last article, we dealt with Romans 6 and showed from scripture that it definitely refers to water baptism. The second passage that is probably the most frequently used when trying to prove spirit baptism is I Cor. 12:13, "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have been all made to drink into one spirit." This passage is very clearly speaking of water baptism. There is absolutely no reason for a person to believe it is speaking of anything else. However, in order to arrive at this conclusion, there are several things which we need to put into perspective. The very foundation of this study begins with a question that maybe is not obvious at first: "what is the definition of church?" Although we are not going to attempt to go into depth about that subject in this article due to space, it is a very important consideration, and will certainly determine what you believe about I Cor. 12:13. The word "church" when used in the New Testament is found 114 times. The only type of a church taught in the New Testament is a local church. By local we mean it is assembling in some definite locality. It is not invisible or mystical as some would teach. The invisible, mystical church has been a false doctrine propagated by Protestants ever since they left the Roman Catholic Church. Since then, they have been trying to find some proof that you do not have to be a part of the visible, catholic church. When we speak of the word "church" therefore, we must define ourselves, because of the great misunderstanding which has taken place among Protestants down through the years, and now has infiltrated many Baptist institutions, and much of Baptist thinking. Some of the reasons that we would hold to only a local church belief are: 1. Christ used the word "church" and always spoke of it in a local sense. 2. Christ only promised to build one kind of a church, and certainly that church is local and visible. At present that church is earthly, and in the future will become heavenly. At the same time it will still be local (in heaven) and visible (in heaven). 3. The term "universal church" is a post-apostolic term that was first used by Hegessipus approximately 300 A.D. It is definitely not apostolic or scriptural in origin. 4. The local church is the only kind of a church that Christ could entrust the Great Commission and the ordinances to. 5. To have a universal church which includes all the saved is to displace and confuse the teaching of the Word of God on the Kingdom of God. With those considerations out of the way, and understanding that unless a person is thinking right when it comes to the term "church" he cannot clearly understand I Cor. 12, we can go on. In I Cor. 12, water baptism is the subject Paul says we are baptized into one body. (You cannot be a member of two churches any more than you are two bodies.) The definition of this one body is very important. You cannot understand what the baptism is all about until you understand what body you are placed into. It must be remembered that the book of I Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth. The church had many problems with divisions and strife. This was one of the major reasons Paul was writing to them. (I Cor. 1:10-11) The purpose of chapter 12, as well as the whole book, is to emphasize to the Corinthian church, (which by the way was local and visible) that they had no reason to be divided, and have sects and groups within the church, because in reality, God had made each of them different in order that they might complement each other. We also notice that in chapter 12 Paul is dealing with the matter of spiritual gifts. "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." (verse 1) In the church there were those with different gifts. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (verse 4) Many of those within the body, the local church, had problems with understanding why others did things differently than them, and why they were involved with different ministries than they were. Paul is explaining that in the body we have many different members. "For as the body is one and hath many members..." (verse 12). These different members are actually helping each other in accomplishing the task of the total body. In verse 13, Paul emphasizes that they were placed into that body by the Spirit of God, and therefore the placing of them into the body by the Spirit demanded that they not try to sever, split or fragment the body. They needed to recognize that others were different from them, and had different functions, yet they were not to discard others who were different from them. Verse 17, "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?" We say that this body is definitely the local church, and on this we must be agreed before we can even understand what this baptism is all about. Paul is writing to a local church in Corinth, speaking about them being in one body. In verse 14-25 he tells how the different parts of the body are meant to work with and to help each other. In verse 26, he speaks of one member suffering and all the members suffering with that member. This is impossible in a universal or invisible body, which some would teach that all Christians belong to. There is absolutely no way I can know what a brother or sister in Christ in China or Russia is experiencing and thereby suffer with or rejoice with that person. This passage of scripture makes sense only when taken in a local sense and understanding that the body is the local church. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, and by application, to me as a member of the Mazon Baptist Church. As further proof, we find in Eph. 1:22-23, "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Here we find that the church is defined as His body. In Col. 1:18 we find, "And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence." Here again, the body is defined as the church. So, understanding that a church can only be a local, visible church, such as Mazon Baptist Church, or the Corinth Church, we therefore conclude that the body is also the local church. In addition, we find that the word "body" is used 18 times in verses 12-27. It is definitely true that a body that never assembles cannot function. We cannot dissect our parts and lay them all over, and expect them to work. They must be assembled. Therefore we conclude that the universal church which some would teach cannot be a body, because it never has assembled. Having therefore concluded that the church and the body are local institutions, and that the body and the church are used interchangeably in scripture, we come to I Cor. 12 and ask ourselves, "What is this baptism into the body?" Some would call this a spirit baptism, which took place on the Day of Pentecost, and is today repeated at the time a person is saved and placed into the body. However, as we have already demonstrated, the body is the local church. To enter the local church, there are more requirements than salvation. In Matt. 28, the Great Commission, God says that first salvation comes, and then water baptism. This passage of scripture plainly teaches that salvation comes, and then baptism, which places us into the local body. The only kind of baptism taught here is water baptism. As some look at I Cor. 12:13, they ask, "What does the Holy Spirit have to do with my baptism?" Certainly scripture does not teach that one is saved by baptism, nor that one receives extra grace or some mystical presence of Christ in the ordinance of baptism. However, I think that if we compare it with Acts 2:41 and 47 it will clear things up. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls....Praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." These people that received the Word of God and baptized, were added to the church. There were about 3000 of them that were saved, baptized, and became members of the church there in Jerusalem. In verse 47, it tells us that the Lord added them to the church. It is a well known fact that there are some who are members of local church, they have their names on the roll, but have never really been born again. Certainly we don’t always know who they are, though sometimes their fruits do give them away. Therefore we would ask, "If a person is a member of the Lord’s Church, which certainly is local and visible, does that mean the he could bypass salvation and be a Christian by simply being baptized and joining the church?" The answer is obviously no. Men may admit a person as a member in a church, and may consider him as one of their members, the Lord is never confused about those that are his own. I believe that when God adds a man to a church, he is placed not only on the roll of the church clerk, but in God’s mind he is a true member of that church, and therefore only this type of person is considered by God as a member of His body. Would God consider a lost man a member of His church on earth? Absolutely not! Therefore, it is the Spirit of God or the Lord that puts us into the local body. This takes place through the ordinance of baptism, which makes us a member of that local church. Baptism is more than a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the instrument by which we are placed within a local church. The Holy spirit, when He adds us to that church, makes us a part of that body, giving us an attitude and a desire to be a part of the rest of the body and to work with the other members. Maybe one of the explanations why some can come and go so easily from church to church, move their letter around, and criticize so well, is found in I John. "They went out from us, but they were not of us." Maybe the reason that they were not of us is that they have never been added by the Lord in the first place. I believe that there is definitely a work of the Spirit of God in placing a person within a church. Therefore this matter of moving from church to church needs to be very carefully dealt with. When people come to join our church, one of the question they are asked is, "Are you very sure that God wants you as a member of our church?" If the Lord has not led them here, then we are better off and they are better off if they never make a commitment to be a part of our body. I Cor. 12:13 cannot be spirit baptism because: 1. Spirit baptism is nowhere taught, as the Universalists teach it, in the Word of God. 2. It places them in the local church. If this was spirit baptism, then no Baptist has a right to refuse membership to any saved person. If there is such a thing as Spirit baptism, which takes place at the time of salvation then every Christian is thereby qualified to be a member of any local church, and to freely go in and out, to be involved in all the business matters of the church, whether they attend regular or not. But according to scripture, this is water baptism which places a person in a local church. Once placed in that church, they are committed to that church, and that church is committed to them. This belief has been held historically by Baptists through the years. It has even been held by men like Harry Ironside who was not a Baptist. It is rather interesting that even many Protestants of the past recognized this truth. But today, men who call themselves by the name Baptist have infiltrated our institutions and our churches, and are teaching so-called Spirit baptism in order to pave the way for an ecumenical movement, which will one day open the doors for the Antichrist. Some may think this is a rather harsh charge. But isn’t the ecumenical movement exactly what the Antichrist is today using, and when he is revealed in the future he will use it to set up his one-world church. The spirit of today is: "We should all get along and work together. After all, we all love Jesus. Don’t worry about doctrine. The doctrine of baptism is not worth dying over." I beg to differ. Baptism has been the blood-shed for Christians down through the years. Many have lost their life because they believed that a man needed proper, scriptural water immersion, and without it a man could not be a member of their church. They did not deny that others could be saved. But they did deny membership into their church, and denied that other Christians were right in disobeying the clear commands of Christ about water baptism. We also, as Christians, need to hold the line in this matter. When you understand what a church is, you can understand what a body is. When you understand what a body is, then the baptism of I Cor. 12:13 gives you no problem. http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_683b.html Baptized by One Spirit into One Body: A Textual Exposition of I Cor. 12:13 Forrest L. Keener, Watchman Press Available in Tract Form. Contact the Editor. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." This is a verse which has, through the years, received a huge amount of attention. I have read a great deal of material on the subject, and even distributed a lot of tracts with which I am less than totally pleased. I will try in this brief tract to state what I feel is the extremely simple and pointed truth of this verse. May I say to begin with, I don't think we need to be an exegetical or a translation expert to understand it; it is just not that complicated. It says precisely and simply what it seems to say. WHY THE COMPLICATED APPROACHES I have read many discourses which approach this verse as if we needed some particular insight into great mysteries, or an ability to dig out very obscure inter­pretations of other Bible verses, to understand this one. These approaches normally lead to some "necessary im­plication" of a "universal body." This wrong inter­pretation of I Cor. 12:13 ("For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. ") is supported by a wrong inter­pretation of Ephesians 4:3 and 4, ("Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;') and in turn that wrong inter­pretation of Ephesians 4:3 and 4 is supported by the same wrong interpretation of I Cor. 12:13. The fact of the matter is that neither of these verses so much as hints at any kind of a universal body. In fact, the words “universal” and “body” are so antagonistic to each other, that we should be forced into laughter by merely hear­ing them so used. The word “body” always means something that is localized by union and united by locality. While the word “universal”, as used in this respect, means something that is everywhere. Infinitude of locality always necessitates a spirit, as opposed to a body. Why the complication then? It is because of the carry-over of Catholicism, even through Protestantism, in so much of our "Christian” literature. If it were not for the Catholic teaching that the "body of Christ" is literally the visible universal (Catholic) church, or the Protestant teaching that the "body of Christ" is literally the invisible universal ("Holy Catholic") church, no such notion would ever exist among evangelical Christians. They certainly would not, in a million years, arrive at it, merely by reading I Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:3, 4 and Eph. 5:25-27. The fact is that to arrive at a universal church interpretation of these verses, a man must start with this Catholic presupposition and use these verses as proof texts to support it. I want to take each of the determinative words of I Cor. 12:13 and show that this passage does not even suggest universalism. Then, I want to very briefly expound the verse in its simple contextual meaning. THE WORD "SPIRIT" "For by one SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body." It has been argued by some, who realized the er­ror of the Catholic interpretation, that the Spirit here was "a spirit of unity," and should be translated spirit not Spirit. Such a conclusion is not necessary, and I do not believe it is either accurate or logically justified. The Spirit here is the Spirit of the context. He is the Spirit who, according to verse 3, leads one to confess Christ, in verse 4 bestows diversities of gifts, and in verse 7 manifests Himself for the overall profit of the church. He is the same Spirit who, in verse 8, gives the word of wisdom to one and the word of knowledge to another, and who in verses 9 and 10, gives gifts of faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers tongues, and interpretation. He is the same Spirit who, in verse 11, sovereignly divides gifts to men, individually as it pleases Him. It is, by every contextual standard of interpretation the "Spirit" of the context and thus, the Holy Spirit who is mentioned here. THE WORD "BY" "For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." It is thought by the universalist that this word, if properly translated, forces us to believe that this verse has the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ literally, and thus the baptism could not be water baptism, and the body referred to could not be a local church. This is in­terpretation either by presupposition, or by panic, or some of both. The word BY need carry no such meaning. It simply means we are led by the Holy Spirit to unite with that body (local church), exactly as we are led by the Spirit to confess Christ in verse 3. This is how-Simeon, in Luke 2:27, came into the temple at the time of Christ's dedication. ("And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, ') He came by the influence of, or the leadership of, the Holy Spirit. THE WORD "BODY" "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one BODY." Again the "body" of this verse is the body of the context, that is, the church at Corinth. This is what Paul is, throughout the chapter, illustrating by the human body. The first question that should be asked here is this: Is the word "body" in this verse, that is the body of Christ, being used literally or figuratively? Is Paul saying we are literally being placed by this baptism into the physical, fleshly, actual, biological body of Christ? Of course not! He is using the human body, in this chapter, to illustrate the truth of necessary union and interdependency within the church, and he is using this metaphor, "body of Christ," to illustrate the rela­tionship that the local church has with Christ as her "head," which is simply to say He has complete authority over the church. To make the use of the words body or head more literal than that is to violate the whole nature of the chapter and indeed the entire epis­tle. Let it farther be understood that we are to think locally, that is of the church at Corinth, and locally as these truths apply to us in any church. Only in this set­ting can verses like 25 and 26 have any applicable reference to the context. Members of a local, visible assembly are to have the same care one for the other, suffer with each other and rejoice when another is honored. If there were such a thing as an invisible, universal body (whatever that might possibly be) this conduct would surely not be possible for them. So the term body here is a metaphorical term describing the relationship that the members of the church at Corinth had with each other under Christ their head. He is talk­ing specifically of the body, that is the church, at-Corinth. Oh, but someone asks, does Christ have many bodies? This is a foolish question. Once we see the metaphorical use of the word BODY in this passage we understand that the usage is generic or institutional and thus is not numerical in any sense of being either singular or plural. Let me illustrate this truth thusly: Christ took a piece or loaf of bread, on the night before His crucifixion, He broke it and said, "Take eat, this is my body." He was simply saying this piece of bread, which you are to eat, pictures my body. But He said "This is my body." Now, are we to understand that this was the only piece of bread about which that statement could be made, or that all pieces of bread are a composite part of one great piece? Absurd! When we see that the statement is a metaphorical one, and could be rightly made of any qualifying piece of bread, that is unleavened bread con­secrated to the purpose of symbolizing Christ's body, we see the truth that applies in I Cor. 12:13. Any proper qualifying piece of bread, at any proper time, and in any proper place and setting, could be referred to as "His body," and in the singular, without violence to any other piece. The very same thing applies easily and automatically to any true church, and it does no violence to any other true church, nor does it so much as hint that they are composite parts of the same thing. Moreover, it does not hint at the foolish idea that the local church is only the manifestation or as some prefer to say, the only visible manifestation of the "real thing," "the true church," or the "universal church." Notice this truth as applied to the human body in I Cor. 12:15. Can the foot say "...I am not of the body..." What body? It speaks of the human body as an object, not an individual. So is the normal case in all metaphorical usages. THE WORD "WE" "For by one Spirit are WE all baptized into one body." Some have said the word WE here of necessity includes Paul, who was obviously not a member of that local assembly, and thus the usage of WE supports a universal interpretation. Nonsense! If the word WE in verse 13 necessarily included him, the word YE in verse 27 of the same chapter would necessarily exclude him. The principle, that we are each part of a local body, ap­plies to Paul, and thus he uses the word WE in an editorial sense. However, throughout the epistle and especially in the context, he excludes himself from this body of which he is speaking in this chapter. Notice verses 1, 2, 3, and 27. In none of these places does he im­ply that he is including himself in the body to whom he is speaking. To understand his editorial use of the word WE in verse 13, notice the use of the word I in chapter 13, verses 1-3. His usage here is hypothetical as if he had not love and became as sounding brass, but he does not really include himself in that group. For an example of the use of the word WE, which does not include both first and second persons, notice I Thes. 3:1. Notice I Thes. 5:5, where he, in the same verse, uses YE and WE referring to the same group. So don't let the word WE in I Cor. 12:13 be used to erroneously point you in a universal direction. It implies no such thing! THE WORD "BAPTIZED" "For by one Spirit are we all BAPTIZED into one body." The universalist's interpretation of this verse is essentially this: The Holy Spirit places (baptizes) us into the "true church,"-"The Body of Christ." They make this a statement of regeneration, that is to say salvation is the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the "true church," the universal body of Christ. But where in Scripture is salvation referred to as "baptism" either in or by the Holy Spirit? While it is true that baptism is used metaphorically to describe salvation, salvation is never referred to as baptism in or by anything or anyone, unless I Cor. 12:13 is the only place. No ground is laid for it anywhere in Scripture. The believers of Luke 3:16 and Acts 1:5 were promised the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was fulfilled to them in Acts 2:1-4, but no one would claim that this was their regeneration. Salvation is not the context of I Cor. 12:13, the context is conduct in the local church. Again, salvation is not the context of Eph. 4:4. In reading Eph. 4:1-3 you find that mutual conduct among the members of the church at Ephesus is the context. This will be the case everywhere in Scripture you see the illustration of the body used. Regeneration is never the context. I thus conclude that no place in Scrip­ture ever refers to salvation as baptism in, or by, the Holy Spirit. These people in the church at Corinth had been led by the Holy Spirit to confess Christ, and had by the same Spirit been led to identify themselves with that particular body, by water baptism. It was by the or­dinance of water baptism that they had come into the fellowship of that body (the church at Corinth). THE SIMPLE INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE The message and exhortation of I Cor. 12:13 and 14 is this: Cease your individual competition in the attempted display of spiritual gifts. Notice the first and last verses of each chapter are clearly this, and every verse in be­tween is right on that line. This verse is simply saying: “All of you whether Jew or Gentile, whether bond or free have been led by the Holy Spirit to, by water baptism, unite yourself with this body (the church at Corinth). Now stop competing for position and pre-eminence, as if you were a unit within yourself, and accept the place in the body to which God has sovereignly appointed you, because you are by the design of God all dependent upon each other.” If this simple truth is missed, we not only entertain a totally wrong concept of Bible doctrine and definition of the biblical word church, we miss the glorious practical appeal for church unity and inter-submission within our church. Any notion of a universal church becomes an escape from the obligation to the local church, and to proper conduct within the local body, the true and only church of the Lord Jesus Christ. http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_984d.html Baptized in the Spirit B. H. Carroll From The Baptist Challenge, February 2014 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with (in) the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 3:11). I have myself heard one and the same person use seriously every one of the following expressions: 1. “Oh, I have received the Spirit baptism, and that is the main thing.” 2. “Whatever may be said of the mode of water baptism, it is certain the Spirit baptism was by pouring.” 3. “O Lord, baptize us in the Holy Ghost and in fire.” 4. The Spirit baptism is but another name for regeneration or conversion, as proved from the Scriptures (Eph. 4:5): “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” and from 1 Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” I say that I have heard one person use all four of these expressions. Now listen to an analysis of them. Judging from the conditions and circumstances when these expressions were used, fairly analyzed, they mean as follows: First expression: There are now in the world two baptisms, by authority of Jesus Christ: Spirit baptism, the greater; water baptism, the less. If you receive the first it exempts you from any special obligation as to the second. I say that is what that first expression means when analyzed. “Oh, we have received the Spirit baptism, which is the main thing.” Analyze that expression and it means that if you have received the greater, the other is a matter of so small importance that there is no special obligation with reference to it. Second expression: As the Spirit baptism, the greater, was by pouring, therefore the water baptism could not be an immersion. That is unquestionably a fair analysis of the second expression. Third expression analyzed: The Spirit baptism comes in answer to prayer. Christians should pray for it. Spirit baptism and fire mean the same thing. The expression you remember was this: “O Lord, baptize us in the Holy Ghost and in fire.” That is a prayer. I say that when that expression is analyzed it means first, that the Spirit baptism comes in answer to prayer, and second, that Christians should pray for it; and third, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and baptism in fire mean the same thing. Fourth expression: As the Spirit baptism means regeneration or conversion, therefore all Christians have already received it, since one cannot be a Christian without regeneration or conversion, and as there is only one baptism, by the Scripture quoted, it cannot be received again by the same person. Hence, Christians may not pray for the baptism of the Spirit. Moreover, as there is only one baptism, and that is Spirit baptism, therefore water baptism is no baptism, and is not obligatory. That is a fair analysis of the fourth expression. The last expression flatly contradicts the first and the third, and the second abuses etymology, rhetoric, and logic and yet the one who said these four things devoutly and religiously held to them all. I would not deem these four expressions worthy of serious notice in a sermon if they were only the past expressions of one man: but as they are the stereotyped and present expressions of a multitude, as they are proverbs and catchwords of today, more potent with many than any argument or any Scripture in swaying human conduct, it may not be amiss to consider them somewhat in this sermon. I repeat that these four expressions, which I have analyzed, and which are contradictory, and which abuse etymology, rhetoric, and logic, and which are palpably contrary to many Scriptures, these four expressions are stereotyped and are the present utterances of a multitude. They are proverbs and catchwords of power with many in swaying human conduct, and they do four hurtful things. They set aside the action of water baptism and depreciate it. They confound the Spirit baptism with conversion. They confound it with sanctification; and they nullify the teachings of the Bible with reference to eternal punishment. By way of introduction I want to propound to your consciences certain questions. First question: The New Testament speaks of a baptism in water and a baptism in the Spirit. In which connection is the word baptism used in a literal sense and in which one is it used in a figurative sense? I put it upon your consciences to answer that question. Is the baptism in the Spirit the literal baptism, and the baptism in the water the figurative, or vice versa? Second question: Is there any command in the New Testament imposing on you the obligation to be baptized in water? Third question: Is Spirit baptism or water baptism designated and required in the following Scriptures? “They ... were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark. 1:5). Is that water baptism or Spirit baptism? “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he carried with them and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” (John 3:22-23) Is that Spirit baptism or water baptism? “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:19) Does that require water baptism or Spirit baptism? “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” (Luke 7:29-30) “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.” (Acts 2:38, 41) “But when they believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12) “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.” (Acts 8:36, 38-39) “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:47) “We went out of the city by a river side ... and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And ... Lydia ... attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, etc. (Acts 16:13-15) “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway.” (Acts 16:32-33) “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8) “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized.” (Acts 22:16) My question is, do these Scriptures which I have just read, designate and require water baptism or Spirit baptism? Which one? Is the baptism in these Scriptures a literal one or a figurative? Do these Scriptures obligate you to water baptism? Fourth question: I ask you to listen to it. In trying to understand your duty concerning water baptism ought you to study what is said in the New Testament about water baptism or about Spirit baptism? I want to repeat and emphasize that question. In trying to understand your duty about water baptism ought you to study what is said in the New Testament about water baptism or ought you to study what is said about Spirit baptism? Fifth question: Is there a command in the New Testament which imposes the obligation of Spirit baptism on you? If so, where? Will you quote it? Sixth question: Granting such a command, does it exempt you from the necessity of obedience to plain and positive commands to submit to water baptism? Seventh question: Because something is said in the New Testament about the Spirit baptism, using the word in a figurative sense, ought you to shun, avoid, neglect, or depreciate a positive and unequivocal command expressed in a literal sense of the word? Now following these expressions which I have quoted, and these questions which have been propounded, I will take the text, “I indeed baptize you in water ... but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost.” This text is a contrast throughout. There is a contrast between two baptizers, John and Jesus. Jesus is mightier than John, in the purity of His character, by so much as an immaculate one is superior to a sinful one; in the power which He holds, in so much as omnipotence transcends temporary, limited, and derived power; in the dignity of His character and of His office, by so much as all authority in heaven and on earth surpasses a brief earthly commission; and in His ministry by so much as that one was to decrease and cease and the other to increase and endure “alway, even unto the end of the world.” There stood the two baptizers; and of the one it is said that he was as great as any man ever born of a woman; and hence it is not instituting a comparison between an insignificant man on the one hand and a greater man on the other, but it is instituting a comparison between the greatest man and a Being infinitely greater than the greatest man. Hence, it unequivocally teaches the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as to His immaculate nature, as to His omnipotent power, as to His investment with all authority, and as to the perpetuity of His kingdom. The second point of contrast is in the baptism. “I indeed baptize you in water.” “He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost.” Here are two elements which stand over against each other as the two baptizers stood over against each other. One element is water; the other element is the Holy Ghost. There is not only a contrast between the baptizers and the baptism, the element, but there is a contrast in the subjects. John baptized in water only penitent believers, men who had repented of their sins, men who had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus baptizes in the Holy Ghost. There is also a contrast in the design of the two baptisms. John baptized in water penitent believers who in that ordinance, visibly and before men, confessed their allegiance to Jesus Christ, and showed forth His burial and resurrection. The design of the baptism of the Holy Ghost was to confer power on Christians, whether they had been baptized in water or not, as you will see directly. Thus, between the baptizers and the elements in which they baptized and the subjects they baptized, and the design of the baptism, they stood over against each other in contrast, and the essential feature of the contrast was power. Power! John said to these Pharisees and Sadducees who came to this baptism, “I cannot baptize you. You do not repent. You do not bring forth fruits meet for repentance. I announce to you that the axe is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. But I cannot take that axe and cut down the trees, I cannot make that discrimination. I cannot separate between the righteous and the unrighteous: but there cometh one after me mightier than I. He can and He will.” And I ask you to notice in the next place that neither of these baptisms supersede or displace the other. You could not plead an exemption from the water baptism because you had received the other. Each one stood upon its own merits. Now I want to show you in the next place what the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not. I want to discuss it negatively. In the first place, it is not conversion for the following reasons: In conversion the Spirit of God is the agent or administrator; but in the baptism of the Spirit the Spirit of God is the element, and Jesus is the agent or administrator. Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost; as the water was the element in which John baptized penitent believers, so the Spirit was the element in which Jesus baptized those who received the baptism of the Spirit. But in conversion the Holy Ghost is the divine agent, the direct administrator. He originates, He acts, He confers, and this is the first point of distinction. In the second place, the subjects of the Spirit baptism and the subjects of regeneration are totally different. The subject of regeneration is a sinner, a lost sinner. The subject of the Spirit baptism is a Christian, one who is already regenerated and converted. There is not a man living who can show one instance where a sinner received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Let me elaborate that before I leave it. Take the second chapter of the Acts, where it is said that the Christian people being assembled together in one place, on these Christian people came the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Jesus had said unto His disciples: Tarry ye in Jerusalem until I send to you the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me. And at the close of that sermon Peter makes faith in Jesus Christ the condition of receiving that Spirit baptism: as Paul does, when he says to those disciples whom he met at Ephesus. Have you received the baptism of the Holy Ghost since you believed, or did you receive it when you believed? Take the next instance. In the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, Philip preached in Samaria, and it is said that “When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized” in water, but as yet the Holy Ghost had fallen on none of them. The apostles came down and prayed that they might receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and these penitent believers, those baptized Christians, received it. Take the case in the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The disciples, to whom the matter was rehearsed, argued from it that they must have previously repented unto life and had their faith purified by Christ, as you will find from the eleventh and fifteenth chapters of the Acts. Suppose I was to see that a certain thing comes only to a certain character, and I see that that certain thing is possessed by a certain man. I then argue from this effect that the previous conditions must have existed in this case. So they said, when it was reported to them that Cornelius the Gentile had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Then hath God granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life, purifying their hearts by faith. Concerning the Samaritans it is taught expressly that they received that baptism after they believed. The Spirit baptism is not conversion, for this reason, which every child can remember: No man living, certainly not at least in any book I have ever read or in any speech I have ever heard, affirms that there ever was in the history of the world, a baptism in the Holy Ghost until the first Pentecost after Christ ascended into heaven. In the history of the world that is the first time that there ever was a baptism in the Spirit. If so, was nobody ever converted until that time? Was not Abel a Christian? Was not Enoch? Was not Noah? Was not Elijah, who went up to heaven in a chariot of fire? Were not the apostles, who had themselves been baptized in water and who had been sent out as baptizers? Do you mean to say that the world was four thousand years old before any soul was ever converted? And yet, whoever teaches that the baptism in the Spirit is regeneration or conversion, denies that any soul was saved, even during Christ’s lifetime, or John the Baptists’, or in the time of the prophets, or from the days of the garden of Eden until the first Pentecost, after the ascension, which is not only monstrous in itself, but which palpably contradicts the whole of the Bible. In the next place, Jesus said at Cæsarea-Philippi, “On this rock will I build my church,” referring to Himself and the faith which Peter had expressed in Him. Now, will you affirm that He built His church upon a foundation that existed prior to salvation, prior to conversion? The design of regeneration and of the Spirit baptism are widely different. The object of regeneration is to make a sinner a Christian. The object of the Spirit baptism is to make a Christian more efficient — to confer power on him. Third argument: In the first letter to the Corinthians, from the twelfth to the fourteenth chapters inclusive, we learn that many who had received the baptism of the Spirit were far from being sanctified. They were selfish, they were proud, they were magnifying these extraordinary powers which had been conferred upon them, and they were depreciating the graces of love and faith and hope which in their highest development constitute sanctification. It is a pity that every Christian has not studied the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters of the first letter to the Corinthians. There in that church were men who possessed the gift of tongues, who could work miracles, who could interpret tongues, who could heal the sick; and yet they were exceedingly imperfect Christians who needed the sanctifying Spirit of God to make them purer and better, and to turn their thoughts away from mere power to grace in the heart. My next argument is that sanctification is the heritage of every Christian, and that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not conferred upon every Christian, even in apostolic times, but only upon so many as God called to receive it; and in the second place, it had never been received by any one prior to Pentecost; and in the third place, it stopped altogether with that apostolic day. Whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be prophecies, they shall fail: but faith, hope, and charity, these abide forever. Now, having discussed the subject negatively, it is practically discussed affirmatively. What is the baptism of the Spirit? Let us go back and read the first announcement in the prophecy of Joel, and while I read it you ask yourselves this: Is it conversion? Is it sanctification? “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit” (Joel 2:28-29). Now, here is Joel’s reference to it. What then was it? The baptism in the Holy Ghost was this — laying aside all images it was this: The conferring upon such Christians in apostolic times as God might select, every variety of extraordinary miraculous powers necessary to accredit them to men as His messengers, and to empower them to overcome all obstacles in the way of the propagation of the gospel. That is what it was. First, among the miraculous powers conferred was that of inspiration; otherwise, how would we get a canon of the New Testament? “Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (II Pet. 1:21) Only a man here and there in the long ages of the past was inspired. Now it is said in the last days, after Jesus Christ ascends into heaven, and is enthroned and invested with all power in heaven and on earth, that He will inspire multitudes of men; instead of partial and occasional inspiration, it shall now be abundant enough to be called a baptism. He will endow multitudes of men with power to work miracles, and to heal the sick, and to speak in different languages. That is what it means. And with that view of the subject, it being a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus Christ, it being given for that special and temporal purpose, a purpose which had its limitation in time as well as in subject, is it not painful, absolutely painful, for men to take such a glorious doctrine as that, given for such a purpose, to take it and wrest it out of its connection, and confound it with water baptism and conversion and sanctification? I do not know when, maybe it will be ten years before I shall have occasion to refer to this subject again, but I do want you Christian people to be instructed in the teaching of the Word of God. Now, I have only one other point before I make my last application. The baptism in the Spirit was a figurative baptism. I mean the word baptism is used in a figurative and not in a literal sense. If I refer to the Duke of Clarence, who was dipped in a hogshead of liquor until he was drowned, that is a literal baptism in wine or in ale. But if I say a man who has been drinking for six weeks, until he is saturated with ardent spirits, soaked in them, filled with them — if I say that man is baptized in wine, or baptized in whiskey, that is a figurative use of the word. I do not mean that he has been literally immersed in whiskey, but I mean that he is absolutely and altogether under its influences. If I immerse one in a creek or baptistry, that is a literal baptism; but if I see a friend of mine in distress, in deep anxiety, groaning, sighing, weeping, full of pain, no ease, no peace, no hope, I say he is baptized in suffering. That is figurative. Just as the Lord Jesus Christ said, “But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) I have sufferings to pass through so deep and overwhelming that you may compare the sufferings to an immersion in suffering. That is a figurative use of the word. If one dip another in a tank of oil, that is a literal baptism, a literal use of the word. But if it be one whose notes of hand are all over the community, whose property is all mortgaged, who has no realty that is not already encumbered, I say that man is baptized in debt — that is a figurative use of the word. He is overwhelmed in debt. Now, when John the Baptist says, “I baptize you in water,” that is a literal baptism, “but Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost,” that is a figurative use of the word. The Holy Ghost is not a liquid element, but you may use the word figuratively; when they are in the house, and the sound that indicates His presence fills that house, and they themselves are filled with the Spirit, permeated throughout by the indwelling Spirit of God, figuratively, you say that is a baptism in the Holy Ghost. That figurative use of the word is one of the commonest known to the Greek classics. I could cite you a hundred instances of it. So that the baptism in water, that is the literal; the other, that is the figurative. And because the literal is a burial, a sinking out of sight, so an overwhelming influence may figuratively be said to be a baptism in that influence. Before we go away from here today I want to impress this upon you. You will hear, as I have heard ever since I was a child, such expressions as this: “Oh, I have received the Spirit baptism, which is the main thing.” You may always question that statement and demand Scriptural proof. You may always question the conclusion designed to be drawn from the statement, which is, “I have received the Spirit baptism; therefore the other is unimportant.” You may also sometimes hear men pray, “Baptize us in the Holy Ghost.” Be sure you understand what that means before you ever offer that prayer. Ask yourself this question: Why should I pray for it? Why should I wish to speak with tongues? Why should I wish to be invested with miraculous power? Why should I wish to have the power to heal the sick by word? Why should I? Those things were for a sign. They were to accredit the gospel. They were to close up and finish the book of Revelation. Now, do you want to write a new book of the Bible? If you do, it means that you think what is here is not sufficient and it means that you take precisely the position of the spiritualists when they say: “We want a fresh gospel.” Now, if you would not know what to do with this when you get it, if there is no reason why you should have it, if merely that you ask for it reflects upon the record which is here, then why should you ask for it? God help you to study His book, to study it profoundly, to allow no floating proverb to set aside the plain “Thus saith the Lord.” Oh, that men who bow in the name of Jesus Christ would bow to the truth of Jesus Christ, and let Him be the Word as well as Savior; let His word settle every question of Christianity; and that book, and that book only, be regarded as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Here is what you need, brethren and sisters. You need more love, more faith, more hope, more of the grace and less of the miraculous endowments of the past. You need submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as your King. You need to say: “Jesus, whatever You tell me to do I will do it. I will not stand here and cavil at Thy words; I will not try to shun them. I will not take one passage of God’s Word and try to sponge out another with it.” Oh, for the spirit of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ! Now, here is the last thing I have to say. It has been said that “you make too much of baptism, you Baptists.” Let me make this statement for you today: You’re the only people called Christians on the face of the earth that require salvation before baptism. There are no others on the earth today who take that position. Instead of making baptism essential to salvation you are the only ones who demand in every case that its subjects must be saved before they are baptized. That is what you make of it. You bring the people to Christ first — salvation first, then baptism. Arm yourselves therefore with God’s truth to fight lying proverbs. Decapitate them with the sword of the Spirit. Explode one small charge of inspired dynamite under these sunken rocks and you will upheave them, making a safe passage to all unwary ships seeking the harbor of truth.
  14. I will counter and say you're projecting, accusing me of what you yourself are doing. The meanings you've attached to those verses in green to justify remarriage cause confusion, cause other words of the Lord to contradict yours. God is not the author of confusion. Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so? “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18
  15. Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians. For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law). They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory. In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment. It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part. To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory. As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses. Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life. And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it. An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed. Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with. And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive. And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27 "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10 "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12 "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13