From Water to Fire

[SteppingStone]

Something I'm still looking into but it appears that the baptism shifted from Water to Holy Ghost Fire in the book of Acts when the words of Christ were recalled...

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

At this point below they were still realizing that the Holy Ghost was being given prior to water baptism yet Peter was still commanding water baptism as well.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

From this point fwd it appears that Peter may or may not have realized that Baptism shifted from Water to Holy Ghost fire because he was recalling the words of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

And here Paul appears to be declaring that the power of God is in the cross, meaning death, burial, and resurrection is simply receiving the Holy Ghost. Otherwise why would he be trivializing water baptism and saying he doesn't teach it anymore?

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

The message is from natural things to Spiritual things. John prepared the way of the Lord with the baptism of water repentance but the one greater did come and He did verily Baptize with Holy Ghost Fire..

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

The Water Baptism of John was never symbolic of the Death of Christ, it was symbolic of, "One who would Baptize with Fire." It appears to have taken the Apostles a while to realize this themselves...

[michaeljloomis]

Maybe it was like circumcision of the flesh. Something that was not required anymore but still sometimes done as tradition. Like when Paul had Timothy relieved of his little fore-buddy. Was it necessary...No. Maybe something of conscience that was optional.

Just a thought.

Welcome to The Arena!!!

[Brother Les]

Mike
Maybe it was like circumcision of the flesh. Something that was not required anymore but still sometimes done as tradition. Like when Paul had Timothy relieved of his little fore-buddy. Was it necessary...No. Maybe something of conscience that was optional.

Just a thought.

Welcome to The Arena!!!

Hi Mike.... You state, "was it necessary...no." on the statement of circumcision of Timothy. I don't think that 'Paul' thought it was 'optional'.... 'Paul' had 'Timothy' circumcised but changed his mind on Titus? Nope... one was under the 'Mosaic' Law during the Transition Period and one was not (but he was under a 'law' unto himself.. 'Paul' did not do that lightly and you should not make it as such, either. During this transition period there were still 'Jews' and 'Gentiles', 'Christians' with distinctions. The 'Marriage' to Jesus/YHWH by His Bride had not taken place yet, so these 'christians' were only in a 'Betrothal' period. 'They' were still being 'Judged' 'under' the 'Laws' from which they were 'born' under. A Promise wasgiven (of the NC), but 'not-yet' fully fulfilled until the 'Judgement'.

[Brother Les]

Hello 'SteppingStone',
I am trying to understand the relationship that you are putting together with the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirt' and connecting 'Fire' with 'that' 'Baptism'?

Something I'm still looking into but it appears that the baptism shifted from Water to Holy Ghost Fire in the book of Acts when the words of Christ were recalled...

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Johns 'Baptism' was (and still is) a 'Baptism' of Repentence (Youngs, says 'reformation'). But looking at the 'Baptism'( immersion, submersion) of The Holy Spirit and 'Also' the 'Baptism' WITH Fire. the one coming after 'John' will perform two different 'types' of 'Baptism'

YLT
11: 'I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

And here Paul appears to be declaring that the power of God is in the cross, meaning death, burial, and resurrection is simply receiving the Holy Ghost. Otherwise why would he be trivializing water baptism and saying he doesn't teach it anymore?

The conflict among the Corinthians was the teachings of three different people from the paradiym of their understanding. Appollos was teaching from the view point of 'John The Baptist' of 'Baptism' and remissions of Sins. 'Appollos' did not have the understanding of 'The Holy Spirit' as of yet. 'Cephus' (Peter) was teaching to Jews from the paradiym of The Law and The Prophets + Jesus. Paul was preaching 'The Cross' as an 'Ending' of 'The Law', which showed and held what 'Sin' was. ie. 'The Power of Sin' was brought forth by 'The Law' and The Cross destroyed that 'Power'. But Paul also knew that 'Sin' and the Power behing it, which is The Law, to those who were under it until the Baptism of Fire had come. This Fire Baptism came at the 'Time of The End' of the Temple Cultus and at the time of the NC Marriage.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

[Brother Les]

Hello 'SteppingStone',
I am trying to understand the relationship that you are putting together with the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirt' and connecting 'Fire' with 'that' 'Baptism'?

Something I'm still looking into but it appears that the baptism shifted from Water to Holy Ghost Fire in the book of Acts when the words of Christ were recalled...

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Johns 'Baptism' was (and still is) a 'Baptism' of Repentence (Youngs, says 'reformation'). But looking at the 'Baptism'( immersion, submersion) of The Holy Spirit and 'Also' the 'Baptism' WITH Fire. the one coming after 'John' will perform two different 'types' of 'Baptism'

YLT
11: 'I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

And here Paul appears to be declaring that the power of God is in the cross, meaning death, burial, and resurrection is simply receiving the Holy Ghost. Otherwise why would he be trivializing water baptism and saying he doesn't teach it anymore?

The conflict among the Corinthians was the teachings of three different people from the paradiym of their understanding. Appollos was teaching from the view point of 'John The Baptist' of 'Baptism' and remissions of Sins. 'Appollos' did not have the understanding of 'The Holy Spirit' as of yet. 'Cephus' (Peter) was teaching to Jews from the paradiym of The Law and The Prophets + Jesus. Paul was preaching 'The Cross' as an 'Ending' of 'The Law', which showed and held what 'Sin' was. ie. 'The Power of Sin' was brought forth by 'The Law' and The Cross destroyed that 'Power'. But Paul also knew that 'Sin' and the Power behing it, which is The Law, to those who were under it until the Baptism of Fire had come. This Fire Baptism came at the 'Time of The End' of the Temple Cultus and at the time of the NC Marriage.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Paul seemed to always be preaching in 'have', but 'not yet' frame of teaching. And he does the same in these verses. Paul said before Agrippa that he is 'judged' for preaching nothing but 'The Hope and The Promises' that were given to The Fathers. What was 'The Hope'? What was 'The Promises'? Redemption, Salvation, Resurrection.... Paul seemed to always preach that He had all of these (Redemption, Salvation, Resurrection).... and he did in the form of 'A' Promise.....

There is a verse that goes something like this Pro 13:12Hope deferred maketh the heart sick : but [when] the desire cometh , [it is] a tree of life.


The desire was the Real and that reality was the coming Judgments of Blessings and Curses of AD70. That is when Paul and all of 'the Elect' recieved that which was Promised. We no longer have to 'Hope For' something that we already have.

[michaeljloomis]

Les...That sounds reasonable. I see what you are saying and I guess I never thought of it that way before. I guess where I was coming from is that during that transition period all those dividing lines had been abolished in Christ. Neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female. I do agree that Jews at least to some extent still practicing the law.

Mike

Originally Posted by Brother Les

Hi Mike.... You state, "was it necessary...no." on the statement of circumcision of Timothy. I don't think that 'Paul' thought it was 'optional'.... 'Paul' had 'Timothy' circumcised but changed his mind on Titus? Nope... one was under the 'Mosaic' Law during the Transition Period and one was not (but he was under a 'law' unto himself.. 'Paul' did not do that lightly and you should not make it as such, either. During this transition period there were still 'Jews' and 'Gentiles', 'Christians' with distinctions. The 'Marriage' to Jesus/YHWH by His Bride had not taken place yet, so these 'christians' were only in a 'Betrothal' period. 'They' were still being 'Judged' 'under' the 'Laws' from which they were 'born' under. A Promise wasgiven (of the NC), but 'not-yet' fully fulfilled until the 'Judgement'.

[MoGrace2u]

Here is my thought on this. John's water baptism is attached to the flood of Noah - it is a consecration for sin for this earthly life to stay the judgment for physical death. Whereas the Holy Spirit is attached to the fires of final judgment and is the purging of sin for eternal life. One is a consecration for the flesh life only and the other is for the sanctification of the spirit to eternal life.

[michaeljloomis]

I like that Mo...That's a good explanation and very much to the point.

Originally Posted by MoGrace2u

Here is my thought on this. John's water baptism is attached to the flood of Noah - it is a consecration for sin for this earthly life to stay the judgment for physical death. Whereas the Holy Spirit is attached to the fires of final judgment and is the purging of sin for eternal life. One is a consecration for the flesh life only and the other is for the sanctification of the spirit to eternal life.

[Brother Les]

MoGrace2u
Here is my thought on this. John's water baptism is attached to the flood of Noah - it is a consecration for sin for this earthly life to stay the judgment for physical death.

To 'Stay' the judgment of Physical Death? physical death was always a reality and does not come into the equation. Through out the NT the Noahtic Flood is compared to the coming Judgmenat of Fire. Johns 'water baptism' was only for the remission of Sins (rolling over?) until the Judgment day. But the purifying by water and animal sacrifices had always been used as a type of 'covering' and rolling forward the sin judgment, ie. remissions of sin.