My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part one

During my seminary days, I read JETS, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.   I could say that was my only foray into evangelicalism until this November 16 and 17, but I know that now to be wrong.  Many if not most of the authors of most of the books that are read, even by fundamentalists, are written by men who are part of the ETS, the Evangelical Theological Society.  At their conference, this year held in San Francisco, they have about 500 separate sessions.  Yes, 500, my friend.  And from sitting in the huge Marriott conference room, I heard that they had to trim it to about 500 from over 800.  The conference guide itself was about 100 pages, just blurbing your choices.

I started my field trip by getting up early on Wednesday morning to take BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) into the city (what we call San Francisco, who live here).  Powell Street.  And there were two gigantic hotels who housed the conference---the Marriott and Parc 55, mostly the former.   I made my way first to register at the Marriott and, I have to say, it was an impressive facility.  8:30am would begin the first of a series of large choices of sessions.  I got in at about 8:20.

I was curious to find out how people would be dressed.  I wore dress pants, dress shirt, dress shoes and socks, and a sport coat, no tie.  I blended with that.  Maybe I was even surprised to find out I looked about like everyone else.  I saw very few soul patches and very little long hair or the heavily moussed, messy hair that one might think he would see if he didn't know.  The people were generally 40 plus.  The minority was young, maybe less than 15% who were younger than 40.  I came in right about the middle of the pack.

After registering, it cost money, I picked up my lanyard with ID, which most people wore around their necks, a complimentary mini-back pack that they expected you to fill with books you bought, and a hard copy of the big program.  My little ID said, Kent Brandenburg, with El Sobrante, CA under it.  Still, I was incognito.  No one knew me.  No one acted like he knew me.  No one talked to me with the exception of one man and I'll get to that later.  I didn't talk to anyone else either.

The Marriott had a Starbucks, so I stood in line for their deal of a large coffee and a free pastry, which was very generous for Starbucks.  Then I made my way from the Marriott to the Parc 55 for the first thing I was going to attend.  I was happy with my choice, but I'm going to get to that part of the story later.  It took 5 minutes to walk fast from the Marriott to Parc 55.  It is right downtown.  You cross Market Street to get from one venue to the other.

The ETS meeting consisted of 3, what they call, plenary sessions.  Those are the three major speakers and those were in a gigantic hall in the lowest floor of the Marriott, which is cavernous.  The ETS filled at the most 30% of the seats.  The first plenary was on Wednesday and the last two on Thursday, all right in the middle of the day.  Two of the speakers were unknowns to me, and I'll give you the debrief of their presentations later.  The one known was Darrell Bock, who had been the president of the ETS in 2000-2001.  He's been a Dallas (DTS) professor and written over 20 books.  Evangelicals definitely have their celebrities.  I'll talk more about that.

Was there a book display?  Yes.  In a room the size of a gym and all the big names were there---Zondervan, Baker, Eerdman, Inter-Varsity, Kregel, Hendrickson, and more.   And a lot of books in that place, which are some very impressive selections, were written by guys who were there.  It was interesting to note nothing from John MacArthur.  He's absent, probably because he isn't considered academic, unless there was something else I was missing.  There were no fundamentalist books.  None by me either.  And I'll talk more about that.

But.  I'm going to jump to the end of my story, because I want to write about that while it is fresh in my mind.  Tonight, well, now yesterday evening, the last session I attended was the one to which I was looking forward the most, the one on the recent book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism.  Two of the authors, Albert Mohler and Kevin Bauder, and the general editor, Andy Naselli, were there.   I had never met any of them (and still haven't), but that session went without break from 3:00pm to 6:10pm.  Carl Trueman was also supposed to be there, but his flight was cancelled, so he missed.

I didn't know how many people would be attempting to make that session.  It was held in a room called Divisidero at the Parc 55.   Because I wasn't sure about the size of crowd, I left the plenary session with Bock 7 or 8 minutes early, and hustled to Parc 55 from the Marriott.  When I arrived, I quickly made it to the room to find about 4 people in it.  One was Bauder and then two guys I didn't recognize.

Speaking of recognition, I did see people I recognized from pictures---Bock, of course, Bauder, Naselli, Jeff Straub, and then David Burgraff.  Actually with the latter, I was thinking, is that the guy, the smart guy ("inconceivable") from Princess Bride?  But no, it was David Burgraff---that's why I knew him.  There was so little time, so I decided not to introduce myself to these professing fundamentalists, even though I walked by Bauder about 6 times and Naselli twice while I was there.

The room, where we met for the session I'm describing, was larger than most, but not that large.  It was almost full.  I sat directly in front of the lecturn on the third row.

Bauder and Naselli both wore blue jeans with sport jackets.  They were actually more casual than, I'd say, 95% of those at the meeting.  Relative to the others at the meeting, they were sort of "occupied," a word some friends of mine and I are attempting to make a part of pop vocabulary.  It seemed as if Bauder was contextualizing fundamentalism for evangelicals, wanting to be sure that everyone knew that fundamentalists did not have a dress standard.  I don't know if they do or not, but my experience in fundamentalism was that there was at least a philosophy of dress with which Bauder was plainly in contrast.  On the other hand, the Presbyterian guy, J. V. Fesko, who subbed for Trueman, and Mohler, were immaculately dressed in dress suits.  So the look was---evangelicals in suits and ties and dress shoes and fundamentalist in casual.  I saw Jeff Straub and he was likewise very casual, so obvious as to be strategic there.

The session started with a few words by Naselli and then right into Albert Mohler.   He went maybe 35 minutes.  Then came Bauder, who talked for perhaps 45.  He apologized later for going overtime.  Fesko read Trueman's paper for about 20-25 minutes.  They had some discussion between themselves, and this left about 40-50 minutes for questions and answers.   Everyone was gracious to one another, and very civil.  Zero fireworks.   I'm not saying that's all good.  The issues represented are serious and should seem like they matter more, in my opinion.  I was able to ask a question.  I'll let you know what it was and how it was answered later.

Impressions.  Mohler is an impressive person.  He looked tired.  His eyes were half mast.  Maybe that's normal for him.  When he got up to speak, he was in some obvious pain and moved slow.  He looks younger than Bauder.  He rarely looked at his notes.  He spoke without hesitation with an ample vocabulary.  He was funny.  He had vocal variety.  He connected.   He is a good speaker.  The position that he represented was pragmatic and had many holes in it.  It was a recipe for disobedience, but still it is very conservative compared to most evangelicals.

Bauder stood next and first answered Mohler's presentation.  He did a good job of correcting some of Mohler's history.  Mohler seemed to agree with the correction---that's how he reacted facially and bodily.  Then Bauder made his case.  He was as good a speaker as Mohler, also not relying much on notes except for the eleven points of his outline.  He explained fundamentalism well.  His position was better than Mohlers, but still indefensible.  No position presented was scripturally tenable, but Bauder's at least approached it.

Carl Trueman in many ways is more conservative than Mohler and even in a few ways he seemed he may be more so than even Bauder.  His position mainly criticized Mohler and barely touched Bauder.  I actually learned some new things about Presbyterians.  I rarely run into them out here, but I could see how that Presbyterianism could make a bit of a run with some who are looking for some doctrinal and practical stability.  They have some built-in protections of their orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  I wouldn't want to be a Presbyterian, but there is a lot there that is attractive to me in comparison with evangelicals and even fundamentalists.

I'll get into the nuts and bolts in the next part.

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting: An Introduction

Our church just finished its Word of Truth Conference.  However, I had read about a month ago that the Evangelical Theological Society would be having its annual meeting in San Francisco this year.  When I heard about it, I was also hearing about one of the sessions for the conference that occurred tonight.  I was there, sitting right in front of the participants, which were Albert Mohler and Kevin Bauder.  Carl Trueman had a transportation issue, so he wasn't there.  A guy read his paper, which was interesting, but hearing him in person would have been nice.  Early next week---Sunday or Monday---I will be writing my honest and blunt impressions and analysis of this session and the whole ETS meeting itself.  I think you'll find them interesting.  Stay tuned.

The Faithless Fears That Help Sink Institutions

Before you read this post, I want to announce that the video from the Word of Truth, panel discussion, which occurred Sunday evening, November 13, is turning up online here.  Enjoy.  Now read the post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Everyone right now is talking about Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky situation.   The question comes:  if Sandusky really did what is alleged, which many, if not most, are assuming, why didn't folks in the know at Penn State not do more about stopping it?  As I rehearse that interrogative, the point is not to write about Penn State here and now.  I want to get at an entirely different point, using the Penn State issue to do so.  If Joe Paterno knew, what virtue or value would hold him or even others from exposing it and stopping it?  Often it is that the damage of the revelation seems to be greater than the damage of the actual deed.

I'm talking about situational ethics, or what some might call hierarchicalism.  The hierarchy is that Penn State as a whole, and the good that the university did and the football program might have done and would do, was greater than the good that exposing Sandusky would have done.  The line of thinking might go like this:  we can stop Sandusky or try to stop him and then hide what he did to help save the university and the program---we're against the evil, really do hate it, but hate the take-down of the institution even more.  More people will be hurt by the exposure than would be hurt by not exposing.  Why should tens of thousands suffer because of the deeds of one man?  I'm not saying I know this is all there is to it, just that it is often how it goes.  It might be the case here with Penn State, Paterno, and some of the administration.  It makes sense that it would, since that is so typical.

So in the above case, the truth is "fudged" really in order to do the "greater good."  That is a kind of hierarchicalism.  It is not to justify Sandusky's actions or even not to make a statement about the heinousness of all of that.  They are putting forth an effort to protect something by choosing whom they will allow to suffer for what they see as a higher value.  I'm not arguing for this, by the way.  I am presenting it to knock it down.

A few dozen times, the Bible tells us not to be afraid.  The world does live in fear, that altogether may stem from the ultimate fear of death, Satan's number one tool.  Perhaps all the fears of man unwind from man's terror over his own termination.  Even if he wastes his life, he knows wasting it isn't good, so he writes his own narrative in which he isn't wasting it, even if he is.  What man forgets is that everything ends with God.  That is truly it.

I bring you to Scripture for a moment to see this.  At the beginning of Luke 12, Jesus warns against the influence of hypocrisy (vv. 1-12).  It's masterful teaching.  Faking our way through---faking it till we make it---is one of the great temptations of life.  We can blow everything by never being genuinely for God, just doing the labor to have people think we are for God.  A man in v. 13, who hasn't been listening but merely waiting for Jesus to take a breath, asks a personal question about an inheritance issue with his brother.  Jesus makes a point about covetousness and what life's really about, and then He illustrates it with a story about a man who had been a sudden, monumental success in his agricultural endeavors (vv. 16-21).  In the story, the man has a bunch of plans to expand his operation, none of which include God.  The one truth that he forgot was the most important one---he would die and face God.

God is the judge.  He is also Sovereign.  In the first twelve verses of Luke 12, Jesus speaks about not fearing man, but fearing God, Who will destroy both body and soul in Hell.   But then He says, "Fear not," because Jesus cares more about men than He does many sparrows.  So those who trust God, and really do fear Him, rather than man, do not need to fear.  It's a paradox.  Fear God and you won't need to or have to fear.

We don't trust God to go into damage control.  We trust God by doing what He told us to do.  There was something that needed to be done at Penn State, but people there, of course, weren't trusting God.  They don't trust God.  That's not how they view their lives or the world.  Values can't survive on this earth without God, since nothing or no one is more valuable than God Himself.  Since God is more valuable than anything, doing what He wants us to do will get us through those moment when we think doing right will bring more damage then it will good.  Maybe in the short term, we could explain how that it would, but with God in the equation, we do what we should and leave it to God to sort through.  In the end, the greater value exists in God.  I believe hierarchicalism does work, but it is understanding that on the top of the hierarchy is God.  He rules.

In churches and evangelical or fundamentalist organizations, bad things are done, and decisions are made on how to handle them based upon what will help preserve the institution.  Maybe even the media is involved.  The media swoops in to try to uncover what's happened in order to sell a news story.  The media doesn't care about a church or a pastor or even the truth.  Their sources may be bitter, disgruntled, and evil people with an axe to grind.  They want to destroy the church or the organization.   They may be  exaggerating or telling lies.  So what is the church or organization to do?

I think a church or organization can easily pull a Penn State, rationalizing that its enemies don't deserve the truth, and that whatever means necessary to protect the church or organization might be justified.   The idea is that "we" can save the church or protect its leadership with an all-out defense.  These are the faithless fears that help sink institutions.

God can and will save what He wishes.  He is Sovereign.  A church might participate in multiple sins and doctrinal and practical error.  It results in casualties, maybe even what some might call collateral damages.  God says confess, forsake, correct, repent, and I will heal and deliver.  That's where true faith comes in.  But the church or organization, its leadership, says faith is to circle the wagons and begin a campaign against the enemies and even its friends.  It's friends are saying, "Confess, repent, forsake, trust God for deliverance."  The church forsakes that counsel for something that looks more like what a defense lawyer will do to spring his guilty client.

Churches and organizations are already leaning on their own understanding for success.  They call it "practical," but that's the wrong word.  The right word is "pragmatic."  "Practical" is when we practice what God told us to do, to follow Scriptural example.  And the pragmatism is what got them in trouble in the first place.  And so it is no wonder that again they will use pragmatism as a means of "rescuing" themselves from their own troubles.  What is ironic is that it isn't going to work.  That's right.  It isn't even pragmatic.  The rich man said he would pull down his barns and build greater.  He had everything all planned, but He wasn't including God in the narrative.  And God is in every single narrative.  It is His story.

I mentioned the hypothetical reasoning of Penn State.  What about these churches?  'We can't confess anything wrong, because it will be admitting that we are guilty of what our enemies are alleging, which is exaggerated and slanderous.  And if someone is not offering full support, even questions what may have happened, they are now with our "enemies."  God is a Mighty Warrior, so our fighting is like God.'  Of course, God fights for Truth and Justice, not just to fight because He's some kind of Fighter, but the combative defense reminds them of how God operates at times, so the fighting must be correct.

Confession is not the cause for the enemies' rejoicing.  Repentance is not the basis of an opponent's victory. Neither of those two is what make our enemies rejoice or prosper---the violation of God's Word did that.

As I write this essay, I'm not saying it is simple to react in a biblical way.  It isn't.  The skids of our flesh are well greased for self-defense.  That's a push that seems natural.   We should consider that our problems might be our own.  We did something wrong that needs a scriptural response as a solution.   Then trust God.  Fear Him.  And then rely on Him for protection.

Spirit Baptism--the Historic Baptist view, part 6

Spirit Baptism in the Gospels, part 3:

Baptism "with" the Holy Ghost, not "in" the Holy Ghost

            The translation of the Authorized Version that Christ “shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 3:11, etc.) is superior in its particular context to a rendering of baptisei en Pneumati Hagio as “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost.”  A comparison of the gospel texts on Spirit baptism indicate that both the simple dative and the dative with en specify the same category of usage in the text.  For example, in Luke 3:16 the dative hudati parallels en Pneumati kai puri. Acts 1:5 likewise parallels John’s baptism hudati with baptism en Pneumati Hagio.  Note also the simple dative puri in Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17. The simple datives are best taken as examples of a “dative of means/instrument [by, by means of, with] . . . [where] the dative substantive is used to indicate the means or instrument by which the verbal action is accomplished.  This is a very common use of the dative, embracing as it does one of the root ideas of the dative case (viz., instrumentality) . . . before the noun in the dative, [one should] supply the words by means of, or simply with.”[i]  While the instrumental dative is very common, there is a great “scarcity of . . . usage [for the] . . . locative of place without a preposition . . . [so that the grammarian] Blass indeed remarks that the ‘local dative’ does not occur in the N. T.”[ii]  If there are few simple datives representing a dative or locative of place in New Testament Greek, or perhaps none at all, but the instrumental idea for the dative form without a preposition is very common, the presumption that the baptisms in Matthew 3 and the parallel passages are “with” water, “with” the Holy Ghost, and “with” fire, rather than “in” these three, is very strong.  Similarly, en Pneumati constitutes a use of en with the dative indicating instrument or means.[iii]  Thus, in Spirit baptism “Christ is the agent . . . and the Holy Spirit is the means . . . that the Lord uses to baptize . . . Pneumati Hagio clearly indicates means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with Spirit-baptism).”[iv]  Furthermore, en pneumati regularly possesses the sense of means or instrumentality in the LXX—the locative idea of sphere is significantly less common.[v]  Indeed, the locative sense is not clearly present in any passage in the Greek Old Testament where en pneumati refers to the Holy Spirit.[vi]  The related en puri (cf. Matthew 3:11, baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri) also very frequently possesses the sense of instrumentality or means in the LXX.[vii]  However, such metaphorical language for Spirit baptism does not exclude any locative sense in Spirit baptism, nor does Christ’s pouring out the Holy Ghost from heaven, which resulted in Spirit baptism, exclude the Spirit’s “fill[ing] all the house where [the 120 in the church] were sitting” (Acts 2:2) and thus immersing the church in His overwhelmingly powerful presence.[viii]  Nevertheless, syntax and context demonstrate that the rendering of the Authorized Version and of English Bibles back to Tyndale[ix] is correct in affirming that Christ performs Holy Ghost baptism with the Spirit.

part 5
part 7

Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series,  is available by clicking here.

TDR

---

[i]           Pgs. 162-3, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[ii]           Pg. 521, A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934.

[iii]          Cf. pgs. 372ff. of Wallace, Greek Grammar, and BDAG definition #5 for e˙n as a “marker introducing means or instrument, with, a construction that begins w. Homer [and with] . . .  wide currency in [the New Testament and early Christian] lit[erature].”  Note that in Revelation 17:14, a verse listed in BDAG under definition #5, the destruction of a city by an army is said to be by “burn[ing the city] with fire” (katakau/sousin e˙n puri÷), a usage very similar to the instrumental e˙n with puri÷ for burning cities in Baruch 1:2; 1 Esdras 1:52; 1 Maccabees 5:5.

[iv]          Pg. 374, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace.  Wallace thought that “perhaps” the preposition indicated sphere as well, but it definitely signified means.  He thus translated the passages as “with,” not “in” the Holy Spirit.  It should be noted that the affirmation that baptism “with” the Holy Ghost is the correct translation does not exclude the idea that the Spirit is indeed the medium of Christ’s baptism with the third member of the Trinity, as water is the medium in the ordinance of believer’s immersion.  Rather, the rendering with simply emphasizes the substance in which the baptism takes place;  that is, the substance employed in baptism is water, the Spirit, or fire.  This fact does not in any way change the fact that a baptism is by definition an immersion, since baptidzo signifies immersion without the aid of any preposition.

[v]           It is, however, still present, e. g.  Ecclesiastes 7:9: Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger will rest in the bosom of fools. mh\ speu/shØß e˙n pneu/mati÷ sou touv qumouvsqai o¢ti qumo\ß e˙n ko/lpwˆ aÓfro/nwn aÓnapau/setai.

[vi]          1 Chronicles 28:12: And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things: kai« to\ para¿deigma o§ ei•cen e˙n pneu/mati aujtouv tw◊n aujlw◊n oi¶kou kuri÷ou kai« pa¿ntwn tw◊n pastofori÷wn tw◊n ku/klwˆ tw◊n ei˙ß ta»ß aÓpoqh/kaß oi¶kou kuri÷ou kai« tw◊n aÓpoqhkw◊n tw◊n agi÷wn.

Nehemiah 9:30: Yet thou didst bear long with them many years, and didst testify to them by thy Spirit by the hand of thy prophets: but they hearkened not; so thou gavest them into the hand of the nations of the land. kai« eiºlkusaß e˙p∆ aujtou\ß e¶th polla» kai« e˙pemartu/rw aujtoi√ß e˙n pneu/mati÷ sou e˙n ceiri« profhtw◊n sou kai« oujk hjnwti÷santo kai« e¶dwkaß aujtou\ß e˙n ceiri« law◊n thvß ghvß.

Isaiah 4:4: When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. o¢ti e˙kplunei√ ku/rioß to\n rJu/pon tw◊n ui˚w◊n kai« tw◊n qugate÷rwn Siwn kai« to\ ai–ma e˙kkaqariei√ e˙k me÷sou aujtw◊n e˙n pneu/mati kri÷sewß kai« pneu/mati kau/sewß.

Ezekiel 11:24: And the Spirit took me up, and brought me to the land of the Chaldeans, to the captivity, in a vision by the Spirit of God: and I went up after the vision which I saw. kai« aÓne÷labe÷n me pneuvma kai« h¡gage÷n me ei˙ß ghvn Caldai÷wn ei˙ß th\n ai˙cmalwsi÷an e˙n oJra¿sei e˙n pneu/mati qeouv kai« aÓne÷bhn aÓpo\ thvß oJra¿sewß h∞ß ei•don.

Ezekiel 37:1: And the hand of the Lord came upon me, and the Lord brought me forth by the Spirit, and set me in the midst of the plain, and it was full of human bones. kai« e˙ge÷neto e˙p∆ e˙me« cei«r kuri÷ou kai« e˙xh/gage÷n me e˙n pneu/mati ku/rioß kai« e¶qhke÷n me e˙n me÷swˆ touv pedi÷ou kai« touvto h™n mesto\n ojste÷wn aÓnqrwpi÷nwn.

Micah 3:8: But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin. e˙a»n mh\ e˙gw» e˙mplh/sw i˙scu\n e˙n pneu/mati kuri÷ou kai« kri÷matoß kai« dunastei÷aß touv aÓpaggei√lai tw◊ˆ Iakwb aÓsebei÷aß aujtouv kai« tw◊ˆ Israhl amarti÷aß aujtouv.

Zechariah 1:6: But do ye receive my words and mine ordinances, all that I command by my Spirit to my servants the prophets, who lived in the days of your fathers; and they answered and said, As the Lord Almighty determined to do to us, according to our ways, and according to our practices, so has he done to us. plh\n tou\ß lo/gouß mou kai« ta» no/mima¿ mou de÷cesqe o¢sa e˙gw» e˙nte÷llomai e˙n pneu/mati÷ mou toi√ß dou/loiß mou toi√ß profh/taiß oi≠ katela¿bosan tou\ß pate÷raß uJmw◊n kai« aÓpekri÷qhsan kai« ei•pan kaqw»ß parate÷taktai ku/rioß pantokra¿twr touv poihvsai kata» ta»ß oJdou\ß uJmw◊n kai« kata» ta» e˙pithdeu/mata uJmw◊n ou¢twß e˙poi÷hsen uJmi√n.

Zechariah 4:6: And he answered and spoke to me, saying, This is the word of the Lord to Zorobabel, saying, not by mighty power, nor by strength, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord Almighty. kai« aÓpekri÷qh kai« ei•pen pro/ß me le÷gwn ou∞toß oJ lo/goß kuri÷ou pro\ß Zorobabel le÷gwn oujk e˙n duna¿mei mega¿lhØ oujde« e˙n i˙scu/i aÓll∆ h· e˙n pneu/mati÷ mou le÷gei ku/rioß pantokra¿twr.

Zechariah 7:12: And they made their heart disobedient, so as not to hearken to my law, and the words which the Lord Almighty sent forth by his Spirit by the former prophets: so there was great wrath from the Lord Almighty. kai« th\n kardi÷an aujtw◊n e¶taxan aÓpeiqhv touv mh\ ei˙sakou/ein touv no/mou mou kai« tou\ß lo/gouß ou§ß e˙xape÷steilen ku/rioß pantokra¿twr e˙n pneu/mati aujtouv e˙n cersi«n tw◊n profhtw◊n tw◊n e¶mprosqen kai« e˙ge÷neto ojrgh\ mega¿lh para» kuri÷ou pantokra¿toroß.

(Note: English renderings above come either from the 1851 translation of the LXX by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton or from the KJV.  Note also Solomon 17:37 in the Apocrypha, kai« oujk aÓsqenh/sei e˙n tai√ß hJme÷raiß aujtouv e˙pi« qew◊ˆ aujtouv o¢ti oJ qeo\ß kateirga¿sato aujto\n dunato\n e˙n pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ kai« sofo\n e˙n boulhvØ sune÷sewß meta» i˙scu/oß kai« dikaiosu/nhß).

[vii]         Three examples out of the 110 verses with the phrase are:

Numbers 31:10: And they burnt with fire all their cities in the places of their habitation and they burnt their villages with fire. kai« pa¿saß ta»ß po/leiß aujtw◊n ta»ß e˙n tai√ß oi˙ki÷aiß aujtw◊n kai« ta»ß e˙pau/leiß aujtw◊n e˙ne÷prhsan e˙n puri÷.

Judges 9:52: And Abimelech drew near to the tower, and they besieged it; and Abimelech drew near to the door of the tower to burn it with fire. kai« h™lqen Abimelec eºwß touv pu/rgou kai« e˙xepole÷mhsan aujto/n kai« h¡ggisen Abimelec eºwß thvß qu/raß touv pu/rgou e˙mprhvsai aujto\n e˙n puri÷.

1 Kings 16:18: And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died. kai« e˙genh/qh wß ei•den Zambri o¢ti prokatei÷lhmptai aujtouv hJ po/liß kai« ei˙sporeu/etai ei˙ß a‡ntron touv oi¶kou touv basile÷wß kai« e˙nepu/risen e˙p∆ aujto\n to\n oi•kon touv basile÷wß e˙n puri« kai« aÓpe÷qanen.

The complete list of references is: Exodus 12:10; 19:18; 32:20; 34:13; Leviticus 4:12; 6:23; 7:17, 19; 8:32; 13:52, 55, 57; 16:27; 19:6; 20:14; Numbers 31:10, 23; Deuteronomy 1:33; 9:21; 12:31; 13:17; 18:10; Joshua 7:15; 8:19, 28; 11:6, 9, 11; 16:10; Judges 1:8; 9:49, 52; 12:1; 14:15; 15:6; 20:48; 1 Samuel 30:1, 3, 14; 2 Samuel 14:30-31; 23:7; 1 Kings 16:18; 18:24, 36-37; 2 Kings 8:12; 16:3; 17:17, 31; 21:6; 23:10; 1 Chronicles 14:12; 21:26; 2 Chronicles 33:6; 35:13; 36:19; Nehemiah 1:3; 2:3; Psalm 45:10; 73:7; 139:11; Amos 4:10; 7:4; Micah 1:7; Nahum 2:4; Habakkuk 2:13; Zephaniah 1:18; 3:8; Zechariah 9:4; Isaiah 10:17; 44:16, 19; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 21:10; 28:32; 30:18; 36:22; 39:29; 41:2, 22; 44:8, 10; 45:17-18; 50:13; 52:13; Ezekiel 5:2, 4; 21:36-37; 22:21, 31; 36:5; 38:19; 1 Esdras 1:52; 1 Maccabees 1:56; 5:5, 35, 44; 11:61; 16:10; 4 Maccabees 9:22; 18:12 Sirach 2:5; 8:10; 45:19; Solomon 12:4; Baruch 1:2.

[viii]         Commenting on the connection of the fact that baptidzo signifies immersion and the baptism of the Spirit, B. H. Carroll wrote:

The baptism in the Spirit was a figurative baptism.  I mean the word baptism is used in a figurative and not in a literal sense. . . . If I immerse one in a creek or baptistery, that is a literal baptism;  but if I see a friend of mine in distress, in deep anxiety, groaning, sighing, weeping, full of pain, no ease, no peace, no hope, I say he is baptized in suffering.  That is figurative.  Just as the Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘I have a baptism to be baptized in, and now am I straitened till it be accomplished[!]’ I have suffering to pass through so deep and overwhelming that you may compare the suffering to an immersion in suffering.  That is a figurative use of the word.  If one dip another in a tank of oil, that is a literal baptism, a literal use of the word.  But if it be one whose notes of hand are all over the community, whose property is all mortgaged, who has no realty that is not already encumbered, I say that man is baptized in debt, that is a figurative use of the word.  He is overwhelmed in debt.

      Now when John the Baptist says, ‘I baptize you in water,’ that is a literal baptism, ‘but Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost,’ that is a figurative use of the word.  The Holy Ghost is not a liquid element, but you may use the word figuratively;  when they are in the house, and the sound that indicates His presence fills that house, and they themselves are filled with the Spirit, permeated throughout by the indwelling Spirit of God, figuratively you say that is a baptism in the Holy Ghost.  That figurative use of the word is one of the commonest known to the Greek classics.  I could cite you a hundred instances of it.  So that the baptism in water, that is the literal;  the other, that is the figurative.  And because the literal is a burial, a sinking out of sight, so an overwhelming influence may figuratively be said to be a baptism in that influence.” (pgs. 42-43, The Three Baptisms, B. H. Carroll, elec. acc. in the AGES Christian Library Series, Vol. 11, B. H. Carroll Collection. Rio, WI: 2006).

Some paedobaptists argue that baptidzo can signify pouring because the Spirit’s being poured out is allegedly a synonym with Spirit baptism, thus equating pouring and baptism.  This argument has severe problems.  If the Holy Ghost’s being “poured out” or “shed forth” on men (e˙kce÷w, Acts 2:17-18, 33; 10:45) demonstrates that baptidzo means pour, then the references, in association with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, to the Spirit “coming upon” (e˙pe÷rcomai, Acts 1:8) people, “falling” on them (e˙pipi÷ptw, Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15-17), “coming” upon them (e¶rcomai. . . e˙pi÷, 19:6), and being “received” (lamba¿nw, Acts 10:47; 19:2) by them would prove that baptidzo also means come upon, fall, receive, and come—the word would be a veritable nose of wax which could be twisted any which way at will, and would mean so much that it meant nothing at all.  The Scriptural distinction in prepositions, where the Spirit falls “upon” (e˙pi÷) and is poured “out” (e˙k) while baptism/immersion is en (e˙n) water and the Spirit, but one is never “baptized out” or “baptized upon,” for example, would also be neglected.  Finally, the Spirit’s being poured out from heaven is synonymous with His being sent by the ascended Christ after He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; John 15:26; 16:7).  The Spirit’s being poured out or sent from heaven had, as its result on earth, the church’s receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.  That is, the result of the heavenly sending or pouring out was the earthly baptism or immersion.  The baptism is not a synonym of the sending or pouring, but a consequence of it.  To attempt to invalidate the simple fact of the Greek language that baptidzo means immerse, and never pour or sprinkle, by confusing the terms that are employed in association with Spirit baptism, is entirely invalid.  For conclusive evidence that to baptize means to immerse, see pgs. 386-444, “Christian Baptism,” in Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, Edward T. Hiscox (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, orig. pub. 1894); pgs. 18-167, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects, Alexander Carson, (5^th rev. ed., Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1860; elec. acc. http://books.google.com).

[ix]          Cf. Matthew 3:11 in the Tyndale Bible, “He shall baptise you with ye holy gost and with fyre.”

Word of Truth 2011 Audio

Hello again reader.

The Word of Truth 2011 Audio for the Conference is going up for your download and listening convenience and challenge as soon as possible.   Those sermons will be uploaded here until the panel discussion is complete on Sunday evening.

Questions About Ecclesiastical Separation

Hello Reader.

This Wednesday to Sunday we are holding our third annual Word of Truth Conference.  Tonight we started with preaching from Pastor Bobby Mitchell of Mid-Coast Baptist Church of Brunswick, Maine.  We have sessions on Thursday through Saturday mornings and preaching on Thursday and Friday nights and then Sunday morning.

On Sunday evening we have our panel discussion.  These first three years the conference has been on the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation.  The panel discussion involves the pastors answering questions.  Do you have questions you would like to ask about ecclesiastical separation?  I'm going to open up this blog for readers to present questions they would like to have answered.  If you have a particular question you would like to hear answered, ask it in the comment section along with your name and the city you are from.   The panel at this year's Word of Truth conference will answer questions that you submit.

The panel discussion will be available afterwards in both audio and video, so you might hear your question and your name on the audio and video of the panel discussion.

Does Uncertainty Come from Certainty?

In an exchange a few years ago, Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, told me this:

Virtually everything is clear and certain in your mind. The pomos' pathological uncertainty is in part a reaction to the unwarranted hubris of the rigid fundamentalist perspective you represent, and vice versa.

Of course, an irony that should not be lost is Phil's regular certainty that he is right.  And in this case, he is certain again...about uncertainty.  I'm actually happy that Phil can be so certain.  I would be very happy if his certainty did come from scriptural arguments, but in my forays into Phil's world, that hasn't always been necessary for him.

I found myself again thinking about this observation.  Does the uncertainty of today, especially as represented in postmodernism, actually stem in some considerable way, from certainty?

The answer to that question is where I say that I wish Phil's certainty here could have come from something from the Bible.  I can't think of one verse or example in the Bible that says that unbelief or uncertainty comes from certainty.  I can't even think of one place in the Bible where uncertainty is exalted or admired.

Phil also used Peter's comments about Paul's eschatalogical writings at the end of 2 Peter 3 (verse 16):

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The verse does not say that we are uncertain about what Paul wrote.  It says something just the opposite actually.  Peter found some of what Paul wrote "hard to be understood."  Come on, we've got to be honest about this kind of thing.  It doesn't say Paul's writings can't be understood---just hard to be understood.  And the last part of the verse assumes or implies that one could be certain about what Paul wrote.  The "unlearned and unstable" wrest those scriptures.  How could anyone know if they had "wrested" Paul's writings unless someone could be certain about what Paul wrote?  And what is ironic here (again) is that Phil Johnson is wresting Peter's writings here to support his erring view of certainty.

Scripture does say that we can't know everything with absolute certainty.  A few passages come immediately to mind.  First, 1 Corinthians 13:2.  Paul uses hyperbole to say that we can't understand all mysteries and all knowledge.  Second, Job 9:10.  God has ways that are past finding out.  But none of those verses are promoting uncertainty.  We can be certain about what we can be certain about, but certainty itself is never said to be the cause of uncertainty.

What does cause uncertainty, according to the Bible, is uncertainty.  And we see this right at the beginning of the Bible.  Eve was certain she would die if she ate of the tree.  Satan planted uncertainty.  And, voila, Eve became uncertain herself.  That's how it actually works.  Doubt begets doubt.  Faithlessness begets faithlessness.

I'm reminded of the doubt of the ten spies who came back from the land and discouraged the entire nation from obeying God.  Later in Numbers 32, Moses was concerned about a replay event, in which the Reubenites would bring their spirit of non-participation to the rest of Israel.  And that sin of non-participation was the sin that Moses said would for sure be found out.  Another irony.  Be sure, be certain, your sin will find you out.  The certainty of Moses could spread to the Reubenites and cause certainty, not uncertainty.  It was the uncertainty of the Reubenites that would cause uncertainty.

Evangelicals in the fellowship of Phil Johnson cause the uncertain-esqueness of the postmoderns.  The postmoderns are encouraged in their uncertainty even as the evangelicals are not sure.  They've just taken it to a further, probably more consistent level.  If you can't be sure what the Words of Scripture are, which Phil Johnson isn't, then how can you be sure about the interpretation and application of the Bible?  The Words are the greater to the lesser of the interpretation and application.  And that's just an example, a big one, but one of the examples.

Evangelicalism is wrought with uncertainty about Bible application.  Phil Johnson is concerned about the uncertainty of the postmodern emergents with their confusion about what foul language is.  Phil knows.  He also knows that gambling is wrong.  They don't know though.  Phil's chagrined.  But there are many areas where Christians were certain in the past, where they are now uncertain, and this was encouraged by evangelicalism and then taken to an all new low with postmodernism.

The uncertainty of evangelicals is the Mack Truck that opened up the path for postmodernism.  Uncertainty is what causes uncertainty.  I'm certain of it.

Spirit Baptism--the Historic Baptist View, part 5

Spirit Baptism in the Gospels, part 2--Fire Baptism

While one who believes that the baptism with fire of Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16 refers to the damnation of the unconverted in hell—a position that should not be easily dismissed from the connection of the word “fire” in Matthew 3:11 to that in 3:12[1]—can still agree with the conclusions made in other parts of this series concerning the connection between Spirit baptism and the church, the position that baptism with fire is synonymous with Spirit baptism deserves serious consideration and should be considered correct for a number of reasons.  First, the reader of the gospels could very easily conclude that they were synonymous.  One who simply reads “I indeed baptize you with water . . . but . . . he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11; ego men baptidzo humas en hudati . . . de . . . autos humas baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri; cf. Luke 3:16) could very easily think that the same “you” receives both the Spirit and fire, namely, the “you” that receives water baptism, and that baptism Pneumati Hagio kai puri, as both “Spirit” and “fire” follow a single en in connection with the single verb “baptize,” refer to the same event.[2]  Furthermore, the men/de clause confirms the association of the several instances of “you” in the verse.  Second, Acts 1:5 refers back to Luke 3:16.  Why would not the entire action of the verse, the Spirit and fire baptism, happen at the same time?  Third, in Acts 2:3-4, the baptism with the Spirit and the appearance of “fire” on the heads of those Spirit-baptized happens at the same moment. Would not Theophilus, reading Luke-Acts, recall Luke 3:16 and think that this was the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire?  Fourth, the gospel accounts in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33 both record only baptism with the Spirit;  fire is not mentioned.  This suggests that there is one baptism with the Spirit and fire, since neither Mark nor John believed the reader needed to hear about the other, as if simply mentioning Spirit baptism covered both things.[3]  Fifth, in Acts, only a record of Spirit baptism as a fulfillment of John’s preaching is recalled from the gospels (Acts 1:5; Luke 3:16) and recorded (Acts 2), suggesting that baptism with the Spirit and fire was a single event predicted by John.  Sixth, the parallel between Spirit baptism’s validation of the church and the coming of the shekinah on the Old Testament tabernacle and temple[4] supports the unity of the two baptisms.  Seventh, while one who believes baptism with fire is eternal torment affirms that one either receives Spirit baptism or fire baptism, the disciples in Acts never told anyone that, since they did not receive Spirit baptism, they were going to get fire baptism.  Eighth, while Spirit baptism was a one time event, the lost who die are cast into hell moment by moment, day by day, so the baptism with fire would seem to not be a one time event, but something daily repeated, indeed, something that is going on continually worldwide.  The two would then not be very parallel.  One who wished to extenuate this difficulty might argue that the baptism with fire refers to the postmillennial future after the Great White Throne judgment, when all the lost in Hades are cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).  In that case, while all the lost, throughout the entire Old Testament and into the Millennium, get cast into the lake of fire and thus allegedly receive fire baptism, only the tiny fraction of church age saints connected with the events in Acts receive Spirit baptism, thus making the two baptisms most discontinuous.  John the Baptist also did not prophesy that all the lost would receive the baptism of fire—at the very least, people in the Old Testament dispensation are not referred to in his preaching.  A fulfillment of fire baptism in the eternal torment of all the lost of all ages thus makes the alleged fulfillment strikingly different than the prediction.  Ninth, no passage states that the eternal state of the lost is a fulfillment of the baptism of fire—the conclusion is an implication drawn from what are not foolproof premises.  Last, maintaining that fire baptism is synonymous with Spirit baptism, on the historic Baptist view elucidated below, makes both Spirit and fire baptism, like literal immersion in water, ecclesiological, not soteriological events. Christ gathered His church from those who had received the baptism of John, and it is the church that received the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2.  John made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lu 1:17) by bringing them to salvation and then baptizing them, so they could be part of the congregation Christ was gathering (John 3:29), which the Savior later authenticated by baptizing His assembly with His Spirit.  Affirming that fire baptism is damnation in hell moves this latter baptism from the realm of ecclesiology to that of soteriology and eschatology.  As literal baptism is not a means of receiving salvation, no metaphorical reference to baptism in the New Testament is ever clearly soteriological.  The cumulative weight of the reasons above lead to the conclusion that, while the position that the baptism with fire is the eternal damnation of the lost deserves serious consideration, the position that the baptism with the Spirit and fire is a single event should be preferred.

part 4

Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series,  is available by clicking here.

TDR

---

[1]           It should be noted in relation to this argument, the strongest one for connecting fire baptism and eternal damnation, that the fact that the Lord Jesus will do what is stated in v. 11, and will also do what is stated in v. 12, do not make the two synonymous.  Verse twelve refers to the eschatological gathering of the saints to glory and the related damnation of the lost.  Spirit baptism does not denote anything in v. 12.  Nor does fire baptism, on either on the synonymous or the eternal torment view, have anything to do with the eschatological gathering of the saints as wheat into the garner at harvest time.  Thus, an affirmation that the judgment of v. 12 defines fire baptism as eschatological damnation must explain why the entry of believers into glory is not Spirit baptism, and thus why v. 12 defines the fire baptism of v. 11 but does not define the Spirit baptism of the same verse.

See pg. 236, Christology of the Old Testament, E. W. Hengstenberg, trans. James Martin, vol. 4, 2^nd ed.  Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1858 (elec. acc. http://books.google.com), for an argument in favor of fire baptism as hell based on the analogy of Malachi 3:2.

[2]           In the words of Henry Alford on Matthew 3:11, “To separate off pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ as belonging to one set of persons, and puri÷ as belonging to another, when both are united by uJma◊ß, is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole.  The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another:  the baptism by water . . . and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire” (Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Henry Alford, vol. 1.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1980 (reprint of 1874 ed.).  Similarly, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelien; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990) notes on Matthew 3:11, “Many see this as a double baptism, one in the Holy Spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrepentant (cf: the wheat and chaff in v.12). Fire (Mal 4:1) destroys and consumes. There are good reasons, however, for taking ‘fire’ as a purifying agent along with the Holy Spirit. The people John is addressing are being baptized by him; presumably they have repented. More important the preposition en (‘with’) is not repeated before fire: the one preposition governs both ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘fire,’ and this normally suggests a unified concept, Spirit-fire or the like. . . . Fire often has a purifying, not destructive, connotation in the OT (e.g., Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3). John’s water baptism relates to repentance; but the one whose way he is preparing will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine.”  James D. G. Dunn writes, “There are not two baptisms envisaged, one with Spirit and one with fire, only one baptism in Spirit-and-fire.  Second, the two baptisms . . . are to be administered to the same people — uJma◊ß” (pg. 11, Baptism in the Holy Spirit).

One notes further that when a verb or verbal is associated with e˙n followed by two prepositional objects, as in the aujto\ß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ kai« puri÷ of Matthew 3:11, the two objects are in the NT either universally or close to universally temporally simultaneous.  For example, in John 4:24’s tou\ß proskunouvntaß aujto/n, e˙n pneu/mati kai« aÓlhqei÷aˆ dei√ proskunei√n, worship in both spirit and truth takes place at the same time.  In Matthew 4:16’s toi√ß kaqhme÷noiß e˙n cw¿raˆ kai« skiaˆ◊ qana¿tou, the people sat in both the region and shadow of death at the same time.  In Luke 4:36, e˙n e˙xousi÷aˆ kai« duna¿mei e˙pita¿ssei toi√ß aÓkaqa¿rtoiß pneu/masi, Christ commanded the unclean spirits with both authority and power at the same moment.  The syntax of Matthew 3:11 is thus in favor of the view that the baptism of the Spirit and of fire takes place at the same time—the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  To make the baptism of the Spirit a Pentecostal phenomenon and the baptism of fire a much later act of casting the lost into the lake of fire does not suit the syntax nearly as well.  There is no way that one can make Christ’s baptism with the Spirit happen at the same time as the judgment of the lost in hell.  Compare the syntax of Matthew 3:11 to Matthew 4:16; Luke 4:36; 7:25; John 4:24; Acts 2:46; Ephesians 1:8; 4:24; 6:4, 18; Colossians 1:9; 2:18, 23; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 17; 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:2, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation 18:16.

The natural association in Matthew 3:11 explains the presence of the view that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire refers to the single event of Pentecost in the patristic period.  “Moreover, Christ is said to baptize with fire: because in the form of flaming tongues He poured forth on His holy disciples the grace of the Spirit: as the Lord Himself says, John truly baptized with water: but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire, not many days hence” (John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV:9).  Lampe mentions texts where Origin, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor, and Didymus of Alexandria interpret as identical the baptism of the Spirit and fire (ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. Lampe).  Of course, this is not the only view found in the significant doctrinal and practical diversity of extant patristic writers.  Basil, On the Spirit, 15:36, refers the baptism of fire to the eschatological judgment of believers, alluding to 1 Corinthians 3:13, a view also expressed as a possibility by John of Damascus following the quotation from IV:9 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith above.  Unfortunately, this patristic view of fire baptism as eschatological instead of Pentecostal may be a reference to the developing doctrine of purgatory; compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 39:19.  Taking a different view, Eusebius, following Origen, refers to martyrdom as baptism by fire (Church History, 6:4:3; cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity, 2:27).  While a comprehensive analysis of all extant patristic literature was not undertaken, neither the works represented in the Church Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, nor in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, series I & II, (elec. acc. Accordance Bible Software; orig. elec. text in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) give any evidence for the view that fire baptism was reserved for those who did not receive Spirit baptism, and thus that the baptism of fire was specifically the damnation of the lost, nor does Lampe indicate the existence of such a view in the patristic period (cf. ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. Lampe).

As the view that the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost took place at Pentecost is extant in the patristic period, so in the medieval period Anabaptists affirmed that just as water baptism “can pertain to none but the intelligent and believing,” so “the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost . . . was administered to the apostles by God Himself from heaven, [and] this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized, spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3, 4” (pg. 234, The Martyr’s Mirror, Thieleman J. Van Braght. 2^nd Eng. ed. Scottdale, PA:  Herald Press, 1999).

[3]           Of course, this must not be taken to imply that John the Baptist did not truly say the actual words in the different gospels, but rather that the NT writers, under inspiration, did not record the “and fire” phrase.

[4]           As explicated in later posts on Spirit baptism in Acts.

            Consider also the related comments of John Owen, commenting on the descent of the Spirit on Christ in the form of a dove, and on His coming upon the church at Pentecost:

The shape [of the Spirit] that appeared was that of a dove, but the substance itself, I judge, was of a fiery nature, an ethereal substance, shaped into the form or resemblance of a dove. It had the shape of a dove, but not the appearance of feathers, colors, or the like. This also rendered the appearance the more visible, conspicuous, heavenly, and glorious. And the Holy Ghost is often compared to fire, because he was of old typified or represented thereby; for on the first solemn offering of sacrifices there came fire from the Lord for the kindling of them. Hence Theodotion of old rendered hOÎwh◊y, Genesis 4:4, “The LORD had respect unto Abel, and to his offering,” by ‘Enepu/risen oJ qeo/ß, “God fired the offering of Abel;” sent down fire that kindled his sacrifice as a token of his acceptance.

However, it is certain that at the first erection of the altar in the wilderness, upon the first sacrifices, “fire came out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat; which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces,” Leviticus 9:24. And the fire kindled hereby was to be perpetuated on the altar, so that none was ever to be used in sacrifice but what was traduced from it. For a neglect of this intimation of the mind of God were Nadab and Abihu consumed, Leviticus 10:1, 2. So was it also upon the dedication of the altar in the temple of Solomon: “Fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices,” 2 Chronicles 7:1; and a fire thence kindled was always kept burning on the altar. And in like manner God bare testimony to the ministry of Elijah, 1 Kings 18:38, 39. God by all these signified that no sacrifices were accepted with him where faith was not kindled in the heart of the offerer by the Holy Ghost, represented by the fire that kindled the sacrifices on the altar. And in answer hereunto is our Lord Jesus Christ said to offer himself “through the eternal Spirit,” Hebrews 9:14. It was, therefore, most probably a fiery appearance [of the dove] that was made. And in the next bodily shape which he assumed it is expressly said that it was fiery: Acts 2:3, “There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire;” which was the visible token of the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And he chose, then, that figure of tongues to denote the assistance which, by the miraculous gift of speaking with divers tongues, together with wisdom and utterance, he furnished them withal for the publication of the gospel. And thus, also, the Lord Christ is said to “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matthew 3:11. Not two things are intended, but the latter words, “and with fire,” are added e˙xhghtikwvß, and the expression is e˚n dia\ duoivn, — with the Holy Ghost, who is a spiritual, divine, eternal fire. So God absolutely is said to be a “consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 4:24. And as in these words, “He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” there is a prospect unto what came to pass afterward, when the apostles received the Holy Ghost with a visible pledge of fiery tongues, so there seems to be a retrospect, by way of allusion unto what is recorded, Isaiah 6:6, 7; for a living or “fiery coal from the altar,” where the fire represented the Holy Ghost, or his work and grace, having touched the lips of his prophet, his sin was taken away, both as to the guilt and filth of it. And this is the work of the Holy Ghost, who not only sanctifieth us, but, by ingenerating faith in us, and the application of the promise unto us, is the cause and means of our justification also, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:4-7, whereby our sins on both accounts are taken away. So also his efficacy in other places is compared unto fire and burning: Isaiah 4:4, 5, “When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” He is compared both to fire and water, with respect unto the same cleansing virtue in both. So also Malachi 3:2. Hence, as this is expressed by “the Holy Ghost and fire” in two evangelists, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16; so in the other two there is mention only of the “Holy Ghost,” Mark 1:8, John 1:33, the same thing being intended (pgs. 98-100,  Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, elec. acc. Christian Library Series vol. 9, John Owen Collection.  Rio, WI: AGES Digital Software, 2005).