Study of Denomintions 05/09/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week
--Baptism--

Furthermore, God is the only one who administers the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is done not by the intent of man but by the intent of God, as seen in Acts 2 and 10. Therefore, other examples in the Scripture when persons submit to baptism (cf. Acts 9:18, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 , Acts 18:8 , etc.), all indications show that they were baptized in water, not in the Spirit.

We can see, then, that even if immersion in water is not explicitly mentioned, all evidence points to that conclusion in all the passages cited.

Retort: 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates that we are all baptized in the Spirit.

Answer: Let us consider 1 Corinthians 12:13:
For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The question we must ask is whether Paul is trying to show that our baptism was in the Spirit or whether our baptism in water was done in accordance with the one Spirit. The context demonstrates that Paul's point is about the unity of Christians, how Christians are to work together in one body; therefore, Paul is not speaking about the nature of baptism per se, but that when we were immersed in water, we did so by one Spirit and were brought into one Body. We cannot understand this verse to be in contradiction with the mountain of evidence for immersion in water (cf. Psalm 119:160 ).

Argument: The Apostles were not baptized, yet they were certainly saved.

Answer: This argument presupposes that since the baptism of the Apostles is not revealed in the Scriptures that it did not happen. Such is not a wise presupposition; we are told that not everything that was done during Christ's ministry is revealed, nor could it really ever be (John 20:30-31, 21:25 ). It is entirely possible, therefore, that the Apostles were baptized and yet such was not revealed.

Furthermore, the idea that the Apostles were baptized is rendered more plausible by the evidence in John 4:1-2:
When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).

If the disciples were out baptizing people during Christ's ministry, it is very likely that they had already been baptized as well.

Argument: Cornelius was saved before baptism. Baptism, then, is not necessary to be saved.

Answer: Since no statement to this effect can be found in Acts 10 or any other passage, to understand and respond to this argument, we must understand the underlying assumption driving it: if one has the Holy Spirit, one must be in a saved state. Is this assumption true?

While this assumption may have merit in the majority of cases, nevertheless, there are times when the Holy Spirit is upon a person who is not saved so as to effect God's will. As it is written in 2 Peter 1:21:
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Peter makes no exception: if a man provides a prophecy, it is not by his will, but by God through the Holy Spirit. Having understood this, let us see what John says regarding Caiaphas in John 11:49-52:
But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, "Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.

John clearly says that Caiaphas "prophesied" regarding Jesus, since he was High Priest that year. Since no man can speak of himself when prophesying, but is guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), Caiaphas must have spoken by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit was with him. Yet who would claim that Caiaphas was saved?

It should be manifest, then, that God can provide the Holy Spirit to a person, even if not saved, to fulfill His purposes. Since God desired for Peter and the other disciples to understand that Gentiles were to hear the Word of life, God poured out His Spirit onto Cornelius and his men to be a sign for Peter, and Peter then understood and had divine testimony to prove it to others (Acts 10:44-47, Acts 11:15-18 ).

In reality, the fact that Peter's immediate response was to baptize Cornelius and his men after God poured out His Spirit out onto them indicates the importance and need for baptism (Acts 10:47 ). Cornelius and his men, in truth, show that we do require immersion in water!

Argument: Baptism in water was only under John the Baptist, and was for repentance; Christ's baptism is "with fire."

Answer: This argument attempts to make a firm distinction between the natures of the baptisms of John and Jesus (Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5). This argument would perhaps have merit if it were not for Paul's discussion with some of John's disciples in Acts 19:1-6:
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?"
And they said unto him, "Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given."
And he said, "Into what then were ye baptized?"
And they said, "Into John's baptism."
And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus."
And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

We can see, then, that the issue was not the nature of the baptism but the purpose of the baptism. John's baptism was for repentance; the baptism in the name of Christ is for the remission of sin through His blood. We see that the disciples of John were baptized again, this time in the name of Jesus, and then they had hands laid on them and received the Spirit. There is no reason, then, to allege that Christ's baptism is not in water.
******