Thursday, February 07, 2008

FutureAG Discussion II

On January 14th, 2008, I participated in a second extensive discussion concerning the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit on FutureAG. The discussion proved very engaging and insightful as to where many young ministers in the Assemblies of God stand on the issue of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in general and tongues as the "initial physical evidence" in particular.

I felt it appropriate to feature my comments from that discussion here on Blogthefire for a couple reasons:

1. I wanted to continue building on their ideas here, and

2. I wanted to have an archive of that work, because the future and content of that blogsite is now in question given the moderators recent decision to pull its plug.

For the record, I fault no one for pulling the site down and I bless the moderators for their vision. I would just regret not having an archive, because it represents a lot of thought and effort on the part of countless people including myself.

As I cautioned in my first FutureAG Discussion post:

Please be advised that my comments are conversational in tone (given the discussion to which they were a part). Also, please note that I have left the vast majority of my comments intact with only a few posts and whole sentences excluded. I left these out because I judged them irrelevant to this article or because they contained the names of the people to whom I was speaking or attempting to contact. I have placed enlarged and boldfaced ellipses (...) to indicate where I cut off and/or resume my comments within the posts I have featured and dated below.

May the Lord use the below comments as He wills and may He connect dots in spite of the incomplete transcript. May you be blessed and edified as you read them. In the name of Jesus the Baptist, AMEN!

- Danny dj Morales

*** Start of Comments ***


January 14, 2008 3:45 PM:

... here are my top 7:

7. The Resurrection of Jesus (without this our faith is meaningless)

6. The Trinity (I think it important to acknowledge who God is both for the sake of truth and for fellowship)

5. The Rapture (Jesus promised to prepare a place for us and I think a cataclysmic world event like this deserves top priority)

4. The Fruit and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (wouldn't it be nice to be known for a balanced diet of fruit and power?)

3. Love for God and People (the summary of all the law per Jesus - oh and wouldn't it be nice to be defined by our love?)

2. The Great Commission (our job description as believers)

and not that it is numero uno in priority, but for the sake of continued discussion...

1. The three new covenant acts that cover us and their covenantal signs we are to experience: Salvation - the Blood of Jesus, Baptism in Water - immersion in water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit - the unknown tongue.

I know this last one is the bone of contention. So...

As far as the Lord's Baptism is concerned, I for one think that because it is the Promise of the Father (singular), marks the birth of the Church (singular event), and is Jesus' baptism (a baptism by definition is a singular event, fillings are multiple events), it should be a doctrinal priority. The unknown tongue (singular as opposed to gifts of different kinds of tongues) as a covenantal sign is worthy of much more discussion and I am not afraid to see it continue.

BTW, I use the term "cover" for a reason, because I believe the Atonement is the central redemptive act that comprises Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism. I know there is a lot of different theories out there about it, but for it to be the highest holy day in God's calendar and set apart from Passover there has to be more to it than we give credit. I hope and pray we can discover and develop ways to understand the Atonement in more of its fullest.

I embrace the idea of re-visiting and re-communicating doctrinal truths. I find the idea exciting and frought with adventure (I know there's danger too). Given all the discussion, it will be wise to separate the fundamentals and the distinctives in whatever form our doctrinal truths take. I also think it wise to provide a little wiggle room for our eschatology (thus I didn't put pre-trib, the millennium, and New Heaven etc.).

Blessings all!

January 15, 2008 1:12 PM:

... People can point to the day they were saved and the day they were baptized in water, but pointing to a momentous baptism by Jesus all of a sudden is a grey area without a definite sign?

If only we could theologically scrape away everything that does not belong to the Lord's Baptism. This is what has led to confusion, endless debate, denominational pride, and division.

The BHS is a singular and momentous baptism by Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit for the individual. The water of the Holy Spirit is still there for filling, but a baptism is a definitely a definite event for an individual.

Does Scripture teach that holiness, spiritual maturity, the Fruit of the Spirit, or the Gifts of the Spirit come from the Lord's baptism? No.

I for one believe the Lord's Baptism is a covenant act like circumcision, salvation, and baptism in water. These are definite events in an individual's life. Unlike the Gifts of the Spirit, these covenant acts are not meant for the edification of the body at large, but for the individual.

Do these covenant acts translate to holiness, spiritual maturity, Fruit of the Holy Spirit, or the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? No.

I believe this is why Gifts and Fruit of the Spirit can, and often times do, come before the Lord's Baptism. This is why the Vineyardites and Calvarychapelites, for example, experience the gifts apart from the BHS.

All these covenant acts have signs associated with them. Do an online Bible search on the words "sign," "covenant," "flesh," "tongue," "mouth," "blood," "water," and "sprinkle." Combine a couple words at a time in your searches. I hope dots get connected like they were for me.

Furthermore, I believe it's important to separate out the Gifts and Fruit from the Lord's Baptism in doctrinal statements. Why?

1. It gives them their proper emphasis (they shall know us by their fruit - sounds like a distinctive and fundamental to me). Let's advertise that we're all about miracles, faith, and healing (another distinctive).

2. It helps to avoid confusion and misallocation of attributes (eg. the unknown tongue is different in purpose and function than the gift of different kinds of tongues; the Lord's Baptism does not translate to the Fruit; the gift of healing can come before or after the Lord's Baptism, etc.).

3. It teaches.

Hope this helps somebody out there. BTW, I really, really, really want to help the AG too.

January 16, 2008 4:01 PM:

... By saying the Lord's Baptism is a covenant act, I am actually elevating it up there with the God's promise not to flood the earth, Circumcision, the Mt Sinai experience, Salvation (the prerequisite1), and Baptism in Water.

Can anyone question the physical evidence of God's rainbow? What about Circumcision (I'd hate to personally confirm this ;-)? What about the Sabbath and when it occurs? Can a person point to their salvation experience? Is a person's Baptism in Water a grey area as to when it happened (maybe with Alzheimer's)? I believe the same truth applies to the Lord's Baptism and its covenantal sign - the unknown tongue.

The first believers were Jews and Covenant people. They understood covenants and covenantal signs. I am just a student outside their culture beginning to learn what has been taught and mulled over on covenants for three millennia. Who knows what the Lord opened their eyes to in Scripture after His ascension2. No one can say they have that all figured out and know what dots He connected.

Obviously, the Lord talked a lot about it "do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about." The Lord's Baptism is the reason why non-Jews were allowed fellowship! Truly we do not give it enough credit.

The fact that it was a gift of the Father points to it being a covenant. It also points to it being a separate and distinct event that is not earned. It's a gift! Did circumcision translate to personal holiness? Does Baptism in Water translate to Fruits of the Spirit?

For this reason, some believers who have been baptized by the Lord will say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?". Why? Because spiritual gifts and operations are not earned and do not translate to personal holiness.

The Lord's Baptism is a gift that empowers and edifies the individual to witness and to speak the mind of God into their individual lives. That's power!

Now, can others be blessed to evangelize and perform miracles? Sure, a person gifted in evangelism is operating in a very real and supernatural office not held by every believer. A person gifted in works of miracles is likewise operating in a very real and supernatural gifting not appointed to every believer.

Hope this helps...

January 17, 2008 1:11 AM:

... I have to take issue with there not being anything spiritual associated with the covenantal signs I mentioned (the rainbow, Circumcision, and Baptism in Water).

Rainbows are God's multi-tongued, I mean multi-colored voice to the world. "Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth". God said whenever He sees it, He remembers. I take Him at His word. Thus, the rainbow is a physical covenantal sign that conveys a spiritual truth.

Jews would really take issue with the non-spirituality of Circumcision, because that is when a Jew is spiritually born (like reborn) into the assembly and given their name. For example, John the Baptist and Jesus were given their names upon their Circumcision (interestingly, Zechariah's mouth and tongue were loosened on this day). It being on the eighth day (the only time the Sabbath could be violated), also has spiritual significance to the Jew, because it represents the day after the seven physical days of creation. “Circumcision Day” is entirely a day of the Spirit. Thus, circumcision is a physical covenantal sign that conveys a spiritual truth.

I think you agree with me partially on Baptism in Water - "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." It's a spiritual pledge. John's Baptism was a sign of repentance - a spiritual concept. We might as well get used to the idea that water is a significant spiritual sign because Jesus talked about it, told us to baptize in it, sits on a throne flowing with it, and waters His city with it (i.e. living H2O). Thus, water is a physical covenantal sign that conveys a spiritual truth.

These are physical signs that carry with them spiritual significance. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, blood is the covenantal sign of Salvation. Why do you think Paul says "therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord". He meant what he said.

The unknown tongue, in my book anyways, is a physical covenantal sign that conveys a spiritual truth just as much as the others. Like God's rainbow, it is a multi-colored arc in your mouth both physically and linguistically. Like Circumcision, it is a sign in the flesh. Like water is to Baptism in Water, the unknown tongue is to the sign of the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

But the real kicker for me as we say, was when I read this in Isaiah:

"'As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD. 'My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the LORD. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. 'Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from afar, and your daughters are carried on the arm."

Kinda sounds like Acts Chapter 2 to me, complete with rainbows, I mean tongues of fire, I mean the glory of the Lord rising upon people's heads ;-). No wonder the Jews were amazed when the Gentiles were speaking in tongues! No wonder Paul's first question to the disciples in Ephesus was "did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?".

On a final note and as I said above, the Lord's Baptism should be placed apart from the Fruit of the Spirit (and the Gifts of the Spirit). Why? Well, for one thing, there are fundamental differences between gifts and fruits. Like my parents used to say, "Danny, money doesn't grow on trees you know." Neither do gifts.

Blessings

January 18, 2008 6:25 PM:

... I thought I would take you up on how I would have answered Dr. [John Jefferson] Davis3 "in a manner that is BOTH consistent with our theology AND simultaneously in rejection of the grounds of infant baptism."

[“... as I read Pentecostal theology, specifically Assembly of God theology, I notice that your statement of faith makes it explicitly clear that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or as Luke defines it, being “filled with the Spirit,” is to be seen as an event subsequent to salvation. Would you agree?”]

1. Being filled with the Spirit does not entirely equal Baptism by Jesus in the Spirit. There are many fillings with the Spirit but there is only one Baptism by Jesus in the Holy Spirit. Think of a Venn Diagram with Fillings in the Spirit and the Lord's Baptism as two separate bubbles with one intersecting area. They intersect, but they are not entirely equal.

[“Is there ever a case where a person is empowered by the Spirit before they are justified by Christ and considered, by the Church, ‘saved’?”]

2. Yes. Scripture is chock full of examples of spirit empowerment, but never are they equal to Baptism by Jesus in the Spirit. Examples include Samson, Saul, and yes even John the Baptist in the womb.

[“Explain to me then ... how it was that John the Baptist was ‘filled with the Spirit,’ at the point of birth if he was not ‘saved’ prior to that point?”]

3. Being filled with the Spirit does not entirely equal Salvation. Another chance to draw a Venn Diagram. John was not saved in the womb, because Jesus' blood had not yet been shed. John the Baptist was saved when the Gospel was preached to the "captives" along with the thief on the cross. For an instance in that intersecting area in your two Venn Diagram bubbles, go to John 20:22-23 (this of course, took place after the Lord's blood was shed).

[“So our God is one who makes exceptions to His rules, especially in the case of infants?”]

4. Wrong premise to start with. In his premise, Filling in Spirit = Baptism by Jesus in the Spirit. Could Jesus have saved an infant and baptized him/her in the Holy Spirit in the womb before His ascension and His blood was shed? No. Refer to Rom 5:9-10 and Acts 2:33.

[“... I’ll ask it more plainly. Was John the Baptist “saved” prior to being “filled” with the Spirit?”]

5. No.

[“It would seem to me ... that the Assembly of God position on Spirit-baptism is actually an incredibly powerful support point for infant baptism. So why aren't we in agreement on this?]

6. ... Which Assembly of God position paper says that one can be saved without the shed blood of Jesus? Which of our position papers teaches that the Lord baptized in the Holy Spirit prior to His ascension? His premise was that John the Baptist was an example of this.

Actually, I have some questions for Dr. Davis to consider:

1. If the Lord's Baptism existed before His ascension, then why did John the Baptist say "but after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

2. If the Lord's Baptism pre-existed His ascension, then why did Jesus say "for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

3. If John had been baptized in the Holy Spirit in the womb, then why did he try to deter Jesus and say "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

And a related question

4. Why did John's disciples in Ephesus have to be re-baptized in water? After all, water is water and a baptism is a baptism right?

Personally, I believe infant baptism is a beautiful and holy thing. I was once honored to be one of two witnesses at a Presbyterian Christening for a neighbor and friend of mine in the Navy. On that day, his twin daughters, who had survived premature births by months and a battery of heart surgeries over several more, were baptized before the Lord and us as witnesses. I felt such an anointing of God's presence in that ceremony.

I believe God honors covenant acts and signs like this. They are holy things. Even unauthorized covenant acts and signs were holy unto the Lord:

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to take the censers out of the smoldering remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy - the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.'"

When I think of infant baptism, I think of infants up in Paradise splashing around in living water and the Lord placing His hands upon them. What a beautiful sight that must be (Matt 19:14-15). Infants already have kingdom citizenship.

However, would I ever put infant baptism in the same category as Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit? No.

They are new covenant acts that were put into effect by the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Heb 9:18) and come by faith in Him. Does faith require understanding? No. But faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit. And lest we forget, faith comes by hearing (e.g. Gentiles in Acts 10).

Do unbelievers get baptized in water? No. They're just taking baths in front of an audience.

January 27, 2008 12:24 AM:

... How do you define prophesying?

How do you define speaking in tongues?

I for one see both as Holy Spirit-enabled speech.

The distinction I draw between prophesying and speaking in tongues is whether or not it is known to the speaker.

Thus, for me, speaking in tongues is speaking as the Holy Spirit enables in a language that is unknown to the speaker.

Prophesying, for me, is speaking as the Holy Spirit enables in a tongue that is known to the speaker.

To me it's all relative to what's known and unknown to the speaker.

If I were to "prophesy" in English, I would be speaking as the Holy Spirit enables in an unknown tongue to a good portion of the world's population.

If I were speaking in Swahili as the Holy Spirit enabled (an unknown tongue to me), I would be "prophesying" to those who knew Swahili.

Both are instances of speaking in tongues (languages). Both are instances of speaking as the Holy Spirit enabled. Furthermore, I believe both are speaking the mind of God. The only difference is what is known to the speaker (speaking with understanding, praying with one's mind, speaking intelligible words etc.).

Here are some rhetorical questions to consider:

Did tongues in Acts Chapter 2 fulfill any part of Joel Chapter 2?

Why does Peter use it to answer the "what does this mean?" question from the onlookers in Acts Chapter 2?

Is the unknown tongue mentioned in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, the IPE we know and love?

And here's some really fun and hypothetical ones:

What would Paul say to those who neither spoke in tongues or prophesied (1 Cor 14:5)?

I only wish I could go back and ask him!

Is there at least one person in the Universe who could understand someone when they are speaking in tongues? If so, would they see it as tongues or prophesying or both?

What do you think? I'd like to know your "working definitions" too...

* if someone speaks in tongues in the Universe and no one is around to hear him/her, does it still have meaning?

January 27, 2008 1:07 AM:

Oh BTW, when I said "both are instances of speaking in tongues (languages)," I meant in the general sense and not in the specific sense (i.e. unknown tongues to the speaker).

January 28, 2008 1:26 PM:

... I make a distinction between revelation (e.g. receiving the Word, opening of eyes, the Word of the Lord coming to someone) and prophesying. So no, I was not implying instantaneous revelation.

The operative words in my working definition are Holy Spirit, enabling, and speaking (or speech). Accordingly, prophesying and speaking in tongues are done under the direct impulse and flow of the Holy Spirit where He forms and puts the words in your mouth, on your tongue, and through your lips.

I'm not sure cognitive abilities are even involved, until the speaker hears himself or herself speaking. Some exciting and recent research has shown this to be plausible in the case of speaking in tongues (The Science of Tongues on ABC News).

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

What makes tongues so awesome in my book is that the language used is completely unknown to the speaker. To answer my own hypothetical question, yes, there's at least one person in the Universe who understands someone speaking in tongues (God) and to Him, I believe, it's both speaking in tongues and prophesying. He's the one that gave the gift and understands the meaning of the words.

The only place in Scripture that I can think of that comes close to people speaking in tongues is at Babel. But, there it appears to be a transformation of cognitive abilities by the Holy Spirit. So people were not speaking under the direct impulse of the Holy Spirit, they were speaking their (transformed) minds! Also, it appears that it was not a language unknown to the speaker, but instantaneously known to the speaker (but not necessarily the hearer).

The other two examples of tongue-speaking involve a donkey and the stones of the ephod. But, I would argue that the donkey understood Balaam's language at least at some level (it had been his donkey for some time). So in this case, the donkey was prophesying (2 Peter 2:16).

With the stones of the ephod, each one represented a tribe. So when the Holy Spirit would descend upon the High Priest to prophesy through the ephod, the stones would "glow in other tribes as the Holy Spirit enabled." Certainly, the stones did not understand anything they were "saying" and they can't be considered a "speaker."

I say all this because although there may be several prototypes of tongues (and I have mentioned many previously elsewhere), they are unique and that's what makes them so awesome to me.

It "makes sense" to me that the sign of the Lord's Baptism would be unique. He did not baptize on earth so it "makes sense" for both the baptism and its sign to be unique (John 4:2, another Scripture you could ask Dr. Davis about).

One last thing, I wonder why Peter used this expression to explain the "what does this mean?" question of the onlookers:

"Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

I thought the Lord had already been filled by the Spirit (Luke 4:1) and had breathed the Spirit on His disciples (John 20:22)? Then, what did He receive from the Father up in heaven?

He received the unique promise of the Holy Spirit and His unique baptism that He bestows from heaven. Interestingly, Paul uses a similar expression:

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Tongues, in my book, are awesomely unique and so too is the Lord's Baptism!

January 29, 2008 1:39 AM:

... I think that most of the division caused by this topic boils down to two things:

1. Not giving the credit to the Lord's Baptism (BHS) and tongues that they deserve, and

2. Giving credit to the Lord's Baptism and tongues that they do not deserve.

I really believe that the best days for the Lord's Baptism and tongues are ahead. The obstacle to that reality, unfortunately, is confusion. It's confusion that leads to division. And as we all know, God is not the author of confusion nor is He a God of disorder.

I can't for the life of me think that something so important as the promised gift of the Spirit, the promise of the Father, is a grey truth. It's the greyness (foisted upon it by the two things mentioned above) that causes the confusion that leads to division.

How could the one gift that unified Jews from all over the known world and that gave birth to the one Body of Christ, all in a single day, lead to this much confusion and division?

In one day, it did the impossible, that which only God could do and man could not. It began to build a city to the heavens by unconfusing tongues.

What would we gain if we were to make the Lord's Baptism and tongues a grey area?

Wouldn't we gain more if we defined them more clearly?

I know the latter will be unpopular, but many times so is the truth.

In our longing for truth, I believe we need to avoid the impulse to lean on human understanding (yes theology is many times full of it). We need to go back to the source, the Holy Spirit and the Book He inspired.

Is that not what the first modern-day Pentecostals did at the beginning of the last century in Topeka? Is that not what the first Pentecostals did in the Upper Room?

As the saying goes, "the rest is history." Who gets the glory? God does, because he "hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."

... we need a Council of Springfield with lots of prayer and fasting. A house divided can not stand, but a church united is the devil's worst nightmare.

January 29, 2008 2:52 PM:

The Witness Dilemma

I wonder if Grudem4 ever considered the following:

1. The four witnesses in the Gospels (all by John the Baptist) pointing to tongues of fire. Although we may not see fire and the Holy Spirit, we certainly hear tongues of fire and the Holy Spirit with our ears and feel them in our mouths. Although we may not hear the sound of a mighty rushing wind from heaven, we certainly hear it coming from our mouths, tongues, and lips.* So John's prophecy could still apply to our present-day experience. As you said, these witnesses do not help us much, but they don't exactly hurt us either.

2. The three witnesses, two different Apostles, and two separate councils of circumcised believers referring to the events found in Acts Chapter 10. These witnesses are found in Acts 11:15-18, Acts 15:7-9, and Acts 15:13-14. These three witnesses are what convinced me that "Gentiles" owe tongues a great deal for their inclusion into the family. Three separate witnesses, two leading apostles, and two different councils are no joke.

3. The fulfillment of Isaiah 59:21 and 60:1-5 in almost the entirety of Acts 2. More importantly, its fulfillment in our present-day experience (cf. "from the mouths of your children" and "the promise is for you and your children...").

"'As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD. 'My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the LORD. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. 'Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from afar, and your daughters are carried on the arm. Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come . . .'"

4. The witness in 1 Corinthians 14:22, where it says in part "tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers". Tongues are definitely a sign and they are definitely connected to witnessing to an unbelieving world. In fact, the way I look at them in a figurative sense, tongues = witnessing to the world. Why? Because they represent God's voice spoken to "every nation, tribe, people and language."

So how many witnesses do we need?

Furthermore, I believe Acts 1:5, 11:16, and Chapters 2, 8, 10, 19, are only the tip of the Scriptural iceberg. In fact, as I have posted elsewhere, I don't even rely upon Acts anymore to connect dots between the Lord's Baptism and the unknown tongue.

The Subsequence Dilemma

As far as the subsequence dilemma, I see it as a result of our understanding (or lack thereof) of the uniqueness of the Lord's Baptism and its simultaneous connection to say salvation.

How is it that the NT speaks of many baptisms (e.g. water and Spirit, Hebrews 6:2 etc.) and at the same time speaks of one baptism? 1 Cor 12:13 is not nearly as problematic as Eph 4:4-6:

"There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

What is this one baptism?

In my book, the Lord's Baptism (in the Holy Spirit) is a separate and distinct experience that is unified with baptism in water and baptism in the blood of Jesus (salvation). The unity approaches that of the Trinity. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit, but all are one God. Likewise, Salvation is not baptism in water and baptism in water is not the Lord's baptism in the Holy Spirit, but all constitute one baptism. I know you and I have been down this line before. But I ask you to at least consider it in prayer.

Much of the confusion, and division, that we see in the body of Christ today can be directly correlated to not seeing the simultaneous unity and diversity between Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

In my book, a person can get saved, baptized in water, and baptized in the Holy Spirit simultaneously. Or, as in my case, saved at age 7, baptized in the Holy Spirit at age 18, gifted with the gift of different kinds of tongues at age 25, and baptized in water for the first time at age 26.

Hope this helps someone out there. I'd like to know what you think.

* there have been times in prayer, when the Spirit of the Lord has come upon me and I begin to speak in different kinds of tongues (cf. the unknown tongue) that the sound of a mighty rushing wind comes out of my mouth. It's loud and it's directly impulsed by the Holy Spirit. It sounds like a gale-force wind with gusts (I'm a weather/ocean guesser ;).

February 1, 2008 10:34 PM:

... In 1 Cor 12:13, who is the personal agent doing the baptizing?

Is it the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit?

Jesus baptizes with the Spirit. The Spirit does not baptize with the Spirit nor does the Father (remember the words of John the Baptist and Acts 2:33?).

This is why I keep on emphasizing the phrase "the Lord's Baptism" here and all throughout FutureAGdom.

As I interpret the NT, there are three main cases of "baptisms":

Case One:
The Father gives believers the blood of His Son (physically and spiritually). The Father covers and washes them with the blood of the Son as a seal of the Holy Spirit (e.g. a father's role in circumcision and the first Passover to name a few).

Case Two:
The Father gives believers water (physically and spiritually). The Holy Spirit baptizes them into the Name and Body of the Son and waters them with this water so that they grow in the likeness of the Son.

Case Three:
The Father gives believers the Holy Spirit (physically and spiritually). The Son baptizes, breathes, and fills them with the Holy Spirit.

Case One is where works of grace live including remission of sins, forgiveness, justification, righteousness, and the covenant act of salvation.

Case Two is where Fruits of the Spirit, Fruits in keeping with repentance, and the covenant act of water Baptism originate from.

Case Three is where Gifts of the Spirit, ministry offices, and the covenant act of the Lord's Baptism are found.

So, in my book, 1 Cor 12:13 is talking about Case Two. This is substantiated by the fact that Paul is trying to extol a Fruit of the Spirit (love) over the Gifts of the Spirit. This verse also introduces a discourse on the Body of Christ and mentions drinking the Spirit.

Bottom line: 1 Cor 12:13 has nothing to do with the Lord's Baptism and tongues.

Also, as I mentioned in my response to [a commenter's] challenge from Dr. Davis, fillings in the Spirit are not entirely equal to the Lord's Baptism with the Holy Spirit and vice versa. There are many fillings in the Bible, but there is only one Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Although the Lord's Baptism may start with a filling, it ends with an overflowing ("and they began to speak in other tongues"). Because of the uniqueness of the Lord's Baptism and tongues, I do not exclusively attach them with Spirit-filling as Grudem and Davis would like to presume.

As far as Grudem's subsequence argument using the Samaritan and Ephesian examples, his dilemma doesn't exist in my theological world. The three covenant acts of Salvation, Water Baptism, and the Lord's Baptism are distinct and at the same time unified. They can happen simultaneously or apart.

... I for one never said that those without the Lord's Baptism could not minister with the power of the Holy Spirit. There are plenty of Biblical examples before (and I assume after) the giving of the Lord's Baptism, of people ministering in the power of the Spirit. As I have said elsewhere, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and -fill in the blank with a mighty evangelical leader here-, operate powerfully in their supernatural offices.

This example of what I see as confusion is another reason why it is advantageous to call Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit "covenant acts" and separate them both from supernatural offices and Gifts of the Spirit. Assuming they have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit, Rick Warren and Billy Graham have missed out on the Lord's unique empowerment for personal witnessing and edification. It doesn't mean that they can't powerfully evangelize though.

To me, it just means they haven't been baptized in the covenant act of the Lord's personal Baptism (He did not baptize on earth). I think it sad for them personally not to experience something on the level of other major covenant acts (e.g. God' promise not to flood the earth), but not a tragedy to the world or the Kingdom at large.

If I had not been baptized in water at the age of 26, who knows when I would have done it. I think going to heaven without it, when I had the chance to experience it here on earth, would have been a very disappointing decision when seen in the grand scheme of God's plans for my life.

... As it concerns adding Jesus to [a list of NT figures who are not said explicitly to speak in tongues], I am assuming you are saying that Jesus was baptized in the Holy Spirit and yet did not speak in tongues. Acts 2:33 is pretty clear in saying that He received His unique baptism up in heaven. To me it's sort of a moot point whether or not Jesus ever spoke in tongues, because up there in Heaven, tongues are constantly flowing from His Throne in the form of rushing waters and thunders.

His baptism by John the Baptist, however, does serve as an awesome prototype: a baptism, the Spirit landing, an empowerment to minister, and a tongue, I mean a voice from heaven ;).

Can a person lose the Baptism in the Holy Spirit?

Here are some questions to consider:

Can a person be unbaptized in water?

Can a person go back and erase the moment in time he or she was saved?

NO.

Here is another example of where the covenant act model can answer these questions. It is a specific act in time. Can you imagine a Jew trying to uncircumcise himself :-P?

People don't lose their Salvation, Baptism in Water, or their Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

What they lose is access to the Kingdom of God.

This how they forfeit their crowns and their prizes. They simply do not show up, because they have lost access (remember Adam and Eve and Paradise?).

This is also why I call Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism "birth experiences." When people experience these things, they are born into a spiritual kingdom where the blood of Jesus becomes their water (e.g. communion), living water becomes their blood, and the Spirit is the very air they breathe.

It is when they stop washing their robes with the blood of Jesus, drinking the living water, and getting filled with the Spirit, that they lose access to the Kingdom. I'm sure they ceased bearing fruit and became dead works long before. Only God can definitively determine when this happens because 1. it's a spiritual death and 2. He is judge.

If they remain in this condition when they die, they will forever remain outside the kingdom. God has the ultimate decision as to their ultimate disposition.

Can you imagine losing your national citizenship? Can you imagine losing access to this country? All your rights are gone. If your name was taken off of every record in this country, it would be as if you were never born or even known. You simply disappear from this country without a trace.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the late response again and the long response. Work is killing me!

Alohas in Jesus

February 2, 2008 2:58 PM:

... I realize the Greek is the same, but I believe the deal breaker is: who is the agent in the baptism of 1 Cor 12:13?

Is it the Son, the Father, or a mortal human being?

Is the Holy Spirit ever an agent in baptism? Well, let's hold off on that for a few...

First, there are fruits of the Spirit I forgot to mention in Case 2 above and they're really quite important, because without them our faith is meaningless. They are a part of my top 7 further above. They are the Firstfruits of the Resurrection.

The Holy Spirit is the agent in resurrection is He not? Is the resurrection a form of baptism? It sure is and it's a powerful one at that! It's as powerful of a baptism as the act of conception in a virgin womb (Matt 1:20).

I believe it is the Holy Spirit who baptizes us into the Body of Christ (aka Family of God) and who waters us to bear His fruit (my Case Two above).

With these ideas in mind, let's look at three other Scriptures that 1. have similar wording to 1 Cor 12:13, 2. illustrate how "in the Spirit" can be simultaneously "by the Spirit" (in other words, simultaneous agent and medium), and 3. Confirm what I call Case Two Baptism:

Romans 7:4-6
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

Romans 8:12-16
"Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

Galatians 5:16-18, 22-25
"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law...But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."

Remember that Paul uses the baptism to introduce his body discourse and then he ties in the most excellent way and Fruit of the Spirit - love. This is why I believe it's an example of what I call Case Two Baptism, where the Holy Spirit is the agent.

For the record, I believe the Spirit is always a medium. It's His nature after all (e.g. "through," "in," "with" etc.). But, I believe He can also simultaneously act as an agent...

P.S. to last post:

I should have mentioned the role of faith and works. I alluded to faith further above when I said:

"...faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation, Baptism in Water, and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit. And lest we forget, faith comes by hearing (e.g. Gentiles in Acts 10). Do unbelievers get baptized in water? No. They're just taking baths in front of an audience."

The common denominator requirement for what I call Case One, Two, and Three Baptisms is faith in Jesus. And as we know, faith comes from hearing the Word of God. This is why the Gentiles were simultaneously baptized in the blood of Jesus (saved) and baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit. BTW, Acts 10 serves as a powerful indicator that there is a tri-unification of Salvation, Baptism in Water and the Lord's Baptism.

Now to works. I mentioned above "it is when they stop washing their robes with the blood of Jesus, drinking the living water, and getting filled with the Spirit, that they lose access to the Kingdom." Because the covenant acts are specific birth experiences, they mark living experiences.

Life doesn't stop at birth, neither does it stop at Salvation, Water Baptism, and the Lord's Baptism. It's just the beginning!

When we stop working out those covenant acts and producing in the Three Cases of Baptism, we die in those spiritual experiences. Faith without works is truly dead.

I believe the last thing to die is the life that began at salvation, but only God knows. But in my mind, there might as well be a sign at the Pearly Gates that reads "No Admittance Without the Blood of Jesus on Your Robe." Why? Because no dead thing has access to the Kingdom of God.

The next time I take the cup of communion, I'll meditate on these two verses:

"he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes."

"blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

*** End of Comments ***


Had I had the chance to post again before the comments were disabled on Monday, February 4, 2008, I would have posted the following:

... No, I think the translation is perfectly rendered fine as baptism in the Spirit (baptizo en Pneuma).

My point is that the Holy Spirit is always a medium (Eng. "in" and Gk. en), but sometimes He acts simultaneously as an agent ("by"). For Holy Spirit agency, you often times have to rely on context. The phrase baptizo en Pneuma gives no indication of agency so you have to rely on context and the context's relation to other Scriptural contexts.

Here are contextual relatives to 1 Cor 12:13:

Acts 8:16
"because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48
"So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

Acts 19:5
"On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

And one that's not so clear, but also relates contextually to what I call "Case Two Baptism":

Galatians 3:26-29, 4:6-7
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise...
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.' So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."


Who leads us to be Sons of God?
Who calls out Abba Father?
Who baptizes into the body and name of Christ?
The Spirit does.

How are was raised like Christ from the dead?
How do we bear fruit to God?
How do we put to death the misdeeds of the body?
How are we freed from the law of sin and death?
By and through the Spirit (and His laws).

1 Cor 12:13, Romans 7:4-6, Romans 8:12-16, Galatians 3:26-29, 4:6-7, Galatians 5:16-18, 22-25 are all contextual cousins. Add them to Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 19:5 and the family becomes even more complete. They all fall under what I call "Case Two Baptism" and they all demonstrate how the Spirit is simultaneously "in" (Gk. en), "by," and "through."

And just so that we understand the power of contextual relativity, let me ask you this rhetorical question:

Do Acts 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 use the phrase baptizo en Pneuma?

In closing, before people start thinking "but Danny (dj) a human agent baptizes a person into the body." Well, let's look at the other two New Covenant Acts:

Salvation and the Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Even in these two cases, there is often a human proxy agent involved:
- A believer leading someone in a prayer of salvation
- A believer laying hands on someone to receive the Lord's Baptism
And what about healing?

Is it the mortal human proxy doing the saving and the baptizing in the Holy Spirit? Likewise, is it the mortal human proxy doing the baptizing into the name and body of Christ?

No.

Alohas all!

Light the Fire Ministries ©2008


Notes:

1. Although I indicate Salvation as a prerequisite here, I also believe in the tri-unification of Salvation, Water Baptism, and the Lord's Baptism. Accordingly, I believe that all three can occur simultaneously - at least from our frame of reference. I am still uncertain as to how a theoretical simultaneous Salvation, Baptism in Water, and Lord's Baptism in the Holy Spirit scenario would work. Would salvation come first in an infinitesimal quantum span of time, so that from our frame of reference they appear simultaneous (apparent - see Hebrews 9:16-22)? Or, could they all happen at the exact same time (real)? If the latter is true, it would mean that Salvation is not a prerequisite at all. The one prerequisite I am NOT uncertain on, however, is faith in Jesus Christ.

2. Correction: I intended to say "resurrection."

3. The bracketed questions that follow are paraphrased questions from Dr. John Jefferson Davis. Dr. Davis is a distinguished professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. For full credit on his paraphrased comments, please visit the article Guest Blogger: Paul Grabill on FutureAG.

4. Here I begin to address two dilemmas posed by Dr. Wayne Grudem against tongues as the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. These dilemmas are found in his book Systematic Theology (chapter 39). Dr. Grudem is a distinguished research professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona.