12 Comments

1. So then water baptism was efficacious to Spirit baptism. I say was, because you believe (1) Spirit baptism is no longer in effect; (2) Spirit baptism only happened to those that had received John the Baptist's baptism. Am I correct in what you are proposing as an interpretation of this?

   Is this your belief Kent or TDR's belief?

   Reply

2. Hi Lance.

   I'll need to read this a little closer to see where you came to the conclusion that Thomas wrote what you said, but, no. But I'm also not 100% sure what you are asking.

   I believe Spirit baptism was a historic event that in the context occurred with already water baptized people. It was promised to people already water baptized and then occurred with those already water baptized. That contradicts that simultaneous with conversion viewpoint.

   Reply

3. Dear Bro Ketchum,

   When Christ baptized the church with the Spirit in Acts 2, all the members of the pre-Pentecost church had been immersed, because baptism is how one becomes part of the church. So everyone who received Spirit baptism had also received water baptism. Spirit baptism never has and never will save anyone from any sin. Water baptism does not bring about Spirit baptism.

   Thanks for commenting.

   Reply

4. Bro. Ross,

   You probably do not know me, but I am not a novice. I do not know you. I have read positions like yours before. I am just trying to find out where you and Kent are on this issue. There appears to be a lot of conflicting statements.

   What local church were the disciples of John the Baptist added to?

   Was John the Baptist part of the "church" you refer to (Matt. 11:11 or Luke 7:28)?

   Do you make any distinction between the local assembly and the "general assembly" (Hebrews 12:230? Or the Dispensational transitions regarding either?

   I am trying to understand your exegesis, but it does not work.

   Is there a baptism with the Spirit into the "body of Christ" for every believer that is saved after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 or not?

   How does your doctrine of the baptism with the Spirit relate to regeneration ("the regeneration" or the New Genesis "in Christ" – Matt. 19:28)?

   Are you saying all the believers that Paul addresses is I Cor. 12:13 were already disciples of John the Baptist?

   Was John's baptism a baptism of repentance unto salvation or a baptism of repentance unto sanctification?

   Acts 19:1-7; why two baptisms here?

   Reply

5. Lance,

   It would be nice for me if Thomas would answer your questions, so I'm not going to right away here, but I appreciate your inquisitiveness, and I have enjoyed and appreciated your writings, even though we haven't met. I don't think Thomas knows you. He really is out of the loop, so to speak, doesn't "keep up" with personalities exactly. He would know you if he read your book, something like that. But I don't think he meant any disrespect, even though you perceived that, so I apologize to you on his behalf. I didn't hear the disrespect when I read his comment, but I wasn't the recipient. Reading it as if it was being said to me had me understand better, however.

   I've actually written on Spirit baptism a lot on this blog. And I know of four positions. I am interested in yours though and why you take it.

   Reply

6. Kent,

   I did not perceive any disrespect. I just thought his answer to my question was directed to someone he thought was lost. No apology necessary. I do not expect everyone to know me. We all travel in pretty limited circles.

   Do you have my book The Unsearchable Riches of Grace?

   The only people I have ever known who took similar positions to what is proposed here are Landmarkests, some Sovereign Grace people, some hyper-dispensationalists, and a few who hold to the New Perspective of Paul. Although I do not know you, I have read many things you have written. I never saw any inclinations in your writings towards any of those positions.

   Reply

7. Hi Lance,

   I don't have that book, but would look into getting it.

   I think Thomas will answer the questions. I will look forward to your critique of his exegesis.

   Reply

8. Dear Bro Ketchum,

   Thanks for the questions. I definitely didn't think you were lost, based on comments you had made on the blog before. I was replying quickly and briefly because I have a lot going on, teaching a seminary Greek class, an undergraduate Greek class, and a Bible Institute class, as well as working a secular job.

   I will answer the questions below in order.

   What local church were the disciples of John the Baptist added to?

   Answer: Christ gathered His assembly out of those immersed by the Baptist. They were not part of Christ's assembly until such time as they assembled with Him.

   Was John the Baptist part of the "church" you refer to (Matt. 11:11 or Luke 7:28)?

   Answer: No. The Kingdom of God is not the church, by the way. You have to be in the kingdom by regeneration before you can join the church by baptism.

   Do you make any distinction between the local assembly and the "general assembly" (Hebrews 12:230? Or the Dispensational transitions regarding either?

   Answer: The word ekklesia means assembly. Things that do not assemble are not assemblies. When we all get to heaven, it will be a wonderful future assembly. If your question is if only Baptists will be in the heavenly assembly, the answer is definitely a no. The church of which I am a member is not the heavenly assembly; they are different.

   I am trying to understand your exegesis, but it does not work.

   Answer: Thank you for trying to understand. I believe it does work, very well, in fact.

   Is there a baptism with the Spirit into the "body of Christ" for every believer that is saved after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 or not?

   Answer: No. You can expect more detail in later posts, where 1 Cor 12:13 will be examined. If you want to find out what is going to be said beforehand, you can read my essay on Spirit baptism at my website.

   Reply

9. How does your doctrine of the baptism with the Spirit relate to regeneration ("the regeneration" or the New Genesis "in Christ" – Matt. 19:28)?

   Answer: Regeneration and Spirit baptism are two different doctrines. Those who received Spirit baptism in the NT were already regenerated.

   Are you saying all the believers that Paul addresses is I Cor. 12:13 were already disciples of John the Baptist?

   Answer: The Corinthians were disciples of Christ, not of John the Baptist.

   Was John's baptism a baptism of repentance unto salvation or a baptism of repentance unto sanctification?

   Answer: John's baptism was a baptism of repentance in that it was a baptism because of or based on repentance, just like a "work of faith" or "labor of love" is a work based on or because of faith or a labor based on or because of love. John baptized people because they had repented. Baptists today also preach the baptism of repentance.

   Acts 19:1-7; why two baptisms here?

   Answer: The people in Acts 19:1-7 were not saved, as they did not even believe in the Trinity. Note that at the end of Acts 18 someone who had John's baptism but was truly saved was NOT given a new baptism. There is an explicit and pointed contrast between the two. I commented on this in footnote #4 to my post.

   The only people I have ever known who took similar positions to what is proposed here are Landmarkests, some Sovereign Grace people, some hyper-dispensationalists, and a few who hold to the New Perspective of Paul. Although I do not know you, I have read many things you have written. I never saw any inclinations in your writings towards any of those positions.

   Answer: Was E. Y. Mullins, president of a Baptist seminary and contributor to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in one of the groups you mentioned? Please note what he said about Spirit baptism in part #2 of this series. In my essay on Spirit baptism on my website I document extensively that the view I take is the historic Baptist view, espoused by the largest Baptist association in early America, by famous Baptists such as B. H. Carroll, etc.

   Thanks for commenting. I am thankful for your interest in this subject. My complete essay is at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.

   Reply

10. Brother Ross,

    Thanks for your response, although I disagree with most of it.

    Why would you say John the Baptist was not regenerated at least in the Old Covenant sense of the word and therefore not part of the "church" you say was begun by his baptism?

    If the baptism with the Spirit has ceased, how do believers get "in Christ" as He promised in John 14:20 – "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

    This will be my last inquiry regarding this.

    Reply

11. Dear Bro Ketchum,

    Your question:

    Why would you say John the Baptist was not regenerated at least in the Old Covenant sense of the word and therefore not part of the "church" you say was begun by his baptism?

    My answer:

    Regeneration does not make one part of the church. Regeneration is soteriological and the church is ecclesiological. The equation "church=the regenerate" came from the Roman Catholic formulation originated by Cyprian that outside the church there is no salvation.

    John 3:29 states:

    He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

    John the Baptist was the friend of the bridegroom. Christ already in the gospels had (note the verse says "hath," present tense) the church as His bride. The friend of the bridegroom is not the bride.

    You asked:

    If the baptism with the Spirit has ceased, how do believers get "in Christ" as He promised in John 14:20 – "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

    My answer:

    Believers get "in Christ" by faith, by believing in Him. The Bible never says anywhere that one is "in Christ" because of receiving Spirit baptism. The Bible never says that union with Christ takes place through Spirit baptism. That might have been the view of the Presbyterian Lewis Sperry Chafer and of Dallas Seminary, based on taking texts in the epistles about water baptism such as Romans 6 and making them into Spirit baptism (which helped to avoid the necessity of believer's immersion), but it is not the view of Scripture.

    Thanks again for your inquiries. I am glad you want to believe what Scripture teaches on this subject, and, I trust, on all subjects.

    Reply

12. Two commenters (TDR, and, if I recall, Gary Webb) now at WIT have stated that the assembly in Heb 12 is future when both the KJV and the ESV seem to state it as a present reality (ye are come/you have come, respectively).

    Why?

    Reply