Fallacy of Baptism "in Holy Spirit"!

by The Searcher 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Band on the Run

  So what does "fire" mean? It can connote many things. None of these ideas of baptism are fully fleshed out in the Bible.

  My fear is that it establishes different categories of believers. I doubt any idea was rather prominent in the beginning. Paul writes of different class difference in the church and wrong it was. He particularly went after the agape meals. The mixing of social classes was one of the primary features of early Christianity. Some mocked the idea while others found it compelling.

  All these additional baptisms appear to set up post baptismal quests and tests. I don't see this in Acts or Paul. It is very unimportant in my faith but I do realize it is a hot topic for other traditions. When is one ever acceptable enough for Christ?

  I thought the formula was baptism in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit. Water means cleansing. Particularly if you are totally immerse, it can symbolize the start of a new life. The Mystery religions also buried and resurrected people to new life. It strikes me that humans add so much to scripture.

  As I said before, this is not even discussed within my community. My take on it is undoubtely influenced by that fact. Can't we all be Christians who believe in Christ and not YHWH. It would appear that martyrdom and loss of social status would be clearer indication of whether one is Christian than baptism types. What about infants who died without any sort of baptism? There are vast expanses of the globe where no one has heard of Christ. Missionary work on behalf of the least of these seems to be baptism to me.

  Jesus did not establish treatises on baptism. His baptism is puzzling. It is unclear what it meant. Only some of John's followers followed Jesus. Anyway, these disputes have been going for many centuries with no clarification.
• 

  Bobcat

  BOTR:

  I had several reasons for posting on this aspect of the subject of "Baptism with Spirit and fire."

  One was the surprise of finding this aspect of the subject, which I thought was clear-cut, to be not so clear-cut after all. In fact, the major commentaries that I consulted all went in the opposite direction as I had been taught by the WT.

  The gist of argument "4" in my previous post is that when a person is baptized by "Spirit and fire" he becomes subject to the fire-like refining of the Holy Spirit. This aspect can be seen in texts such as Malachi 3:2-4 and 1Cor 3:10-15, where "fire" is mentioned in a 'refining' or purging sense.

  The converse is that a person who rejects Christ's overtures would eventually, either in this age or the one to come, suffer permanent judgment as if thru the effect of fire.

  The argument that John the Baptist presents concerning the one coming after him is that he (Jesus) eventually settles, once and for all, the disturbed relationship between God and all of humankind.

  Incidentally, John's saying that Jesuys baptizes with "Spirit and fire" is proof positive that there is no two-class Christian system. All persons who accept Christ are baptized with Spirit, contra the WT which holds that only a few select persons are baptized in this way.

  In connection with water baptism, Jesus said, ". . .Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) Thus, water baptism, which you mentioned by citing Matthew 28, is also a necessity. (With due respect to opposing views mentioned earlier in this thread).

  Take Care
• 

  Band on the Run

  Yes, I've always read the scripture to mean baptism confers "fire" at the time of baptism. In fact, I never realized that the Witnesses did not teach this. I must have picked up my view from the surroudning culture. My mind is a mash of Witness, Catholic( my neighborhood was about 98% C), and Protestant teachings. Indeed, it is only since coming here that I appreciate how much the Witnesses devalue Jesus.

  I don't like the "born-again" doctrine myself. My Jesus is inclusive. I also don't like the Elect doctrine of the Puritans. My personal experience in the KH was that meek people, such as my aunt, never feel that they are good enough for Jehovah. She constantly feared not surviving Armageddon. While other recent converts with no great legitimacy were so smug that they were safe from God's wrath as God slaughters millions of innocents.

  I wonder if we don't have a preexisitng bias towards one view and supply the scriptures later.

  Has anyone ever researched how the strange Witness doctrines evolved? I've read about the Adventists and William Miller. Freddie Franz could not have formed all these novel interpretations out of whole cloth, could he have? I was told he was so brilliant no on else came close to his vast knowledge. Priests, the pope, academics, no way. Was there anyone else at Bethel with similar training that could have acted as a balance? I don't know about the era in which Franz and Knorr first emerged.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Yes, I've always read the scripture to mean baptism confers "fire" at the time of baptism. In fact, I never realized that the Witnesses did not teach this. I must have picked up my view from the surroudning culture. My mind is a mash of Witness, Catholic( my neighborhood was about 98% C), and Protestant teachings. Indeed, it is only since coming here that I appreciate how much the Witnesses devalue Jesus.

  I don't like the "born-again" doctrine myself. My Jesus is inclusive. I also don't like the Elect doctrine of the Puritans. My personal experience in the KH was that meek people, such as my aunt, never feel that they are good enough for Jehovah. She constantly feared not surviving Armageddon. While other recent converts with no great legitimacy were so smug that they were safe from God's wrath as God slaughters millions of innocents.

  I wonder if we don't have a preexisitng bias towards one view and supply the scriptures later.

  Has anyone ever researched how the strange Witness doctrines evolved? I've read about the Adventists and William Miller. Freddie Franz could not have formed all these novel interpretations out of whole cloth, could he have? I was told he was so brilliant no on else came close to his vast knowledge. Priests, the pope, academics, no way. Was there anyone else at Bethel with similar training that could have acted as a balance? I don't know about the era in which Franz and Knorr first emerged.
• 

  Bobcat

  BOTR:

  Has anyone ever researched how the strange Witness doctrines evolved?

  I sometimes think that he (Franz and his associates) had a strong need to counter "Christendom" and its doctrines. Thus, any explanation that showed Christendom's theologians up was easily taken in.

  An example of this is the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven in Matthew 13. W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary, gave explanations of these two parables that condemned the lukewarmness of Christendom. These explanations became the basis for the WT explanations of these parables (although I don't know if the WT ever gave Vine credit for the ideas.)

  Just a few years ago the WT abandoned these explanations for completely different ones. The new explanations are not all that different from the mainstay explanations that "Christendom's theologians" have given for years. Again, no mention by the WT that those theologians were right all along.

  Take Care
• 

  designs

  In Judaism God's Spirit is considered to be upon all humans. In the Talmud it states: 'I call upon Heaven and Earth to witness the truth of what I am saying: That: regardless of whether it be a Jew or a Gentile, a man or a woman, a man-servant or a maid-servant, according to the actions of each person does the Shechinah rest upon him'.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Designs,

  I believe I prefer the Jewish view. Thanks for informing me. It sheds some light on Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist.