Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Steppers

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Granted, I affirm all those scriptures as legitimate, inspired, and authoritative. But here's issue, not only are Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 inspired and authoritative, but so are also John 1:12, John 3:16-18, John 6:40, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:21-5:2, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9 also as inspired, and so the point is not who can proof text a few verses, but ratherhow do these verses compliment each other and present a unified message.

And therefore I see my position as true to the entire testimony of scripture. I do not have to redefine what it means to be saved by grace through faith without works, nor dance around the teaching of justification by faith, so plainly explained by Paul in Romans and Galatians.

Originally Posted by Jito463

Those verses do not preclude baptism being essential to salvation. Care to explain how that proves your point? I'm not seeing it.

Indeed, just throwing scripture out there does not prove a point, that IS the point. We have to take all of scripture together. Now then in this regard I would say you keep your current position, but really do a study of the scriptures I gave you, yea, the whole books of Romans and Galatians, the Gospel of John, and really do a verse by verse study and think critically about whether or not those verses are in absolute harmony with your position. Start with Romans 3:21-5:2, and come out with the conclusion that if a man is not only baptized, but baptized with the correct words spoken over him, and then that he must not only receive the Spirit, but speak in tongues, in order to be saved. That's a start. Explain to me how your soteriological view is consistent with that.

Originally Posted by Jason B

See note above, let me add this. If your position says "you can't be saved unless you are baptized", then your position equates the application of the blood of Christ at baptism. It also equates justification at baptism. But there are two major problems with this position
1)Cornielius' house received the Spirit BEFORE baptism. That alone destroys any argument that salvation, forgiveness of sin, or application of the blood is made AT baptism.
2)Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 4 to teach on justification by faith, and especially in Romans 4:10 emphasizes Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. That same argument applies to justitification before baptism.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't think your position is completely consisitent with ALL of scripture.

Originally Posted by Jito463

No, it doesn't. There is nothing in my argument that says baptism must come before the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Also, the argument can be (and has been) made, that God needed to fill them with His Spirit, in order to convince Peter and the other Jews that they were indeed part of the new birth experience, and were equally accepted by God.

JITO, your missing the point. The point is not the order, it is your view of baptism. I think we can agree we have a Biblical example in Acts 10, and many contemporary examples of people who spoke in tongues before they were baptized. Stay with me...

IF justification is by faith, then the sinner is forgiven by God at repentance/belief, thus having their sins forgiven and the blood and righteousness of Christ applied to them and accredited to their account, God can baptize them with the Holy Ghost

*BUT* if there is no salvation without baptism and if there is no forgiveness of sins without baptism, THEN how do you explain people receiving the Holy Ghost while still being under the condemnation of sin. Think about that, it is a YUGE logical problem.

The dilemma is this-you assert that someone must fulfill the 3 step method to be saved. We agree on repentance, so lets focus on baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. You say both are necessary (and baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with tongues). To fail to do BOTH of those things is to be lost, eternal damnation in hell fire (if we could keep it real).

So then if you say baptism is for the real and actual forgiveness of sins and does really actually wash away sins, and does actually save us (taking all those phrases literally), thus making baptism the moment real forgiveness takes place-then anyone who is not baptized is lost. And yet, while we don't have a Biblical example of that, there are many people in the pentecostal movement who received the Holy Ghost but died without ever being baptized. That's a real problem-A)that they received the Holy Ghost while they were yet under the condemnation of sin and B)that God gave them His Spirit but they were still lost. (When the Bible plainly teaches to be born again from above is to be saved, to receive the Spirit is to be adopted into God's family, and to belong to Christ).

You can also add a 3rd YUGE problem in C)millions and millions of trinitarian pentecostals who have received the same Holy Ghost, with the same sign, and yet who are still lost because the wrong words were spoken over them in baptism.

In addition to these problems, you have the opposite, perhaps more common dilemma, and that is of a repentant believer who gets baptized (even in Jesus name) and yet does not receive the Holy Ghost for years (and sometimes ever), at least according to the oneness doctrine that demands tongues as the initial sign evidence. Yet your doctrine affirms that baptism in Jesus name is effective for the forgiveness of sins, the washing away of sins, and addition to the church, the body of Christ.

SO a couple questions-1)How can someone be lost if they have been forgiven of their sins, had their sins washed away, and trusted in Christ? On what basis do they go to hell? For what sin?
2)If someone receives the Spirit of God, but dies before they get baptized, how is it possible for someone who has been born again by the Spirit of God to go to hell?

(In my view justification, regereration aka the baptism of the Spirit, and adoption are all essentially simultaneous acts, thus Acts 10 is totally consistent with my belief).

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason B

2)Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 4 to teach on justification by faith, and especially in Romans 4:10 emphasizes Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. That same argument applies to justitification before baptism.

Originally Posted by Jito463

You fail to take into account that the book of Romans (and every book after Acts, in fact) was written to those already saved. They didn't need to go back and build up the basics of water baptism again, every one of them had already been baptized.

Brother, trust me, I took that into account. I only hear that anytime we have this discussion. I've read that argument in Bernard's book the New Birth, heard it from the pulpit many times, yea, used it myself many a time. The problem is, it doesn't matter that Roman was written to believers. So was every other epistle. Have you ever won someone to the Lord and taught them a Bible study? Search for Truth, Into His Marvelous Light, etc? Why? Why teach them since they already were saved? The reason is just because someone is saved that doesn't mean they understand exactly what happened to them or why, nor all the ramifications and consequences fo their new life, thus teaching is in order. The gospel call is simple, its a call to believe in Jesus Christ, that we are under God's condemnation for our sins, and Jesus paid the price. Repent and believe the gospel. It's easy, God doesn't require a theological degree. *BUT* as we mature we understand just what happened on the cross, why it was necessary, and the wisdom of God and the goodness of God in salvation. Our having previously experienced salvation, does not negate the need to learn about it. Beyond that, isn't *ALL SCRIPTURE* inspired by God and profitible for DOCTRINE?

You make a big mistake to discount the teaching of Romans on account it was writtent o saved people. The book of Romans was Paul's letter to the Roman church, a church he didn't establish and wasn't personally known by, laying out the gospel He preached. Not only does he do that, but as he does that he explains the various aspects of salvation in detail unparelled in any other book in scripture. He lays out universal guilt, destroys all systems of works-righteousness and morality, explains how salvation is truly by grace and cannot be earned, that it is wholly by God's goodness and love that we can have salvation, He teaches justification, explains propitiation, double imputation, by implication of Christ as the second Adam touches on the necessity of the virgin birth (original sin) and the principle of federal headship. Baptism, sanctificaiton, adoption, predestination, glorification, and consumation are all laid out in the first 8 chapters of Romans.

So Romans was written to believers? Ok, I agree, now care to deal with the content?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

No one I know says that tongues saves you, merely that when one is saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. What's so untenable about that?

Originally Posted by Jason B

I know thats what they say, but its a matter of semantics. They also say, when you buy a pair of shoes you don't buy the tongues, but you get the tongues, so it is with the Holy Ghost. No one who believes that will affirm that people can be saved without speaking in tongues, thus the logical conclusion is anyone who hasn't spoken in tonuges is not and cannot be saved. This is untenable because not only does it lack Biblical proof, but also it doesn't hold up historically.

Oneness people who affirm this, NEVER want to deal with the logical conclusion (except Steve Epley). The logical conclusion is essentially every Christian for 2000 years was a false convert who will burn in hell for eternity, having neither been baptized in Jesus name nor spoken in tongues, and certainly not both. Thus essentially everyone who has advanced the Gospel message and the cause of Christ through the history of the church was lost-Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther, Melanchton, William Tyndale, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John & Charles Wesley, Savanarola, John Bunyan, etc to the recent times, David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, Hudson Taylor, and many men now living, who have never spoken in tongues, even some who desire to (see John Piper), all lost. *BUT* while condemning all them to hell, Charles Parham and all those who follow him are seen as true Christian (well except the fact many of them were trinitarians and came down against the "new issue" in the early 1900s and died outside the oneness movement. Thus what OPs are left with as the truly saved are the Urshans, GT Haywood, Howard Goss, Frank Bartleman, and a handful or organizational heros, while condemning the rest of Christianity to hell fire. YET where are the great oneness contriubtions to the church-where is the oneness blood spilt for Bible translations, hymns, commentaries, etc? Oneness is built on the backs of trinitarians who didn't speak in tongues, while condemning the same. That position is untenable. Do you sing Amazing Grace? The old rugged cross? Rock of Ages? Crown Him with many crowns? Why? Why use songs written about God and his salvation by people who didn't know God, nor his salvation? It's untenable, and inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Jito463

You assume several things.

1) You assume there were none who spoke in tongues during the time between the rise of Catholicism and Azusa Street.
2) You assume that just because someone did something for the kingdom of God, that they should be saved. Remember, Jesus said that the day will come when many will hear, 'depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you'. That wasn't directed at the lost, that was directed at those who claimed to be part of the body of Christ, but never actually were.
3) You assume that one must be saved to be used of God. God used a donkey to talk to Balaam, does that mean the donkey was saved?

Again, you jump over the substance and introduce red herrings. I'll respond to these 3 then reintroduce the previous thought:

1)Simply incorrect, there were accounts of people who spoke in tongues, the Montanists are the most prolific of such groups, Augustine seems to refer to it, numerous mystics in the Middle Ages claimed to or a similar experience, some reports say this happened in the Weslyan Revivals, the first Great Awakening in America, the Cane Ridge Revival, and so on. There are scattered claims of tongues speaking throughout church history, along with some bizarre claims of other things. But throughough church history until the 20th century, the people who spoke in tongues did not baptize in Jesus name, and with very rare exceptions they were all trinitarian. So according to your view they were all lost, so why does that matter? This is my point, your view is so inconsistent its only logical conclusion is to condemn to hell essentially any Christian anywhere from the time of the apostle John until the time of RE McCallister at Arroyo Seco in 1913.

2)Not at all. In fact I have serious doubts about one of the great heros of the Reformation, John Calvin. I don't think theres any question there will be people who claimed to be Christians who go to hell. There's no doubt there are false converts, and there's a real question about the way oneness pentecostals use Matthew 7:21-23. OPs often use it toward all these Christians in history who weren't like them. I think the better application is the many people of the church who persecuted other believers, and the many charlatins of all ages, rampant in our age. To name names, The Copelands, Dollars,Rob Bell's, Steven Furticks, Todd Bentley's, Bill Johnsons of the world. People who are simply not Christian. I do not believe this verse is speaking of say, Hudson Taylor, who goes and gives his life for the people of China, or William Tyndale who so believes in getting the Word of God to people in their own language so that he is burned alive at the stake. Or to the anabaptists who wanted to so identify with Christ by their own believers baptism, despite the fact they were baptized as babies, that they were ruthlessly tortured and taken out to rivers and drowned to death. I don't think it applies to John Newton who lived his life in regret over his sinful days, authoring the beloved hymn Amazing Grace. I think to apply Matthew 7:21-23 to such people as these simply because they didn't have the correct words spoken over them at baptism and they didn't speak in esctatic language that no one understands, is a gross misapplication of te scripture.

Beyond that, I honestly think there will be oneness people who will be caught up in that judgment. People who are hateful, judgemental, and callous in the name of being "uncompromising" and "standing for the old paths". I think we should allow Matthew 7:21-23 as a warning to us all, rather than just thinking it applies to them, over there, who aren't like us.

3)Again, not at all, the scripture is clear God uses unbelievers all the time. Balaams donkey, Pharoh, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Annas, Caiphas, even Judas Iscariot and Demas. I think God is using Donald Trump to some degree, and I don't believe Trump has a regenerate bone in his body. I guess it depends on your view of the sovereignty and providence of God as to how much he uses certain people. I'd argue that God is essentially using whom He wills to accomplish His purposes.

Now then, a simple question, in your opinion, knowing that all of the men I listed above were not baptized in Jesus name and did not speak in tongues, do you believe all of them to be lost, and as such burning in hell this very moment? Huss, Wesley, Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Edwards, Ravenhill, Wilkerson, etc. A simple question.

[Jito463]

It's midnight here, and I have work in the morning, so I'll try to write up a proper response later.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Hey, Esaias, will you please answer the following questions:

1. Does the Bible teach justification is a one time act or a process?
2. On what basis is a repentant sinner justified?
3. What actions or conditions are required of a sinner before they can be justified?
4. What is the result of justification?
5. In exactly what sense does a justified person have peace with God, as per Romans 5:1?
6. Is it possible to be justified and lost? 6a. Is it possible to be at peace with God and lost?
7. Must a person be baptized before they can be justified?

Romans ch 6 speaks of baptism as the means whereby we are united with Christ into death and raised with Him in new life. Verse 7 says "for he that is dead is freed from sin" and that word "freed" is the EXACT SAME WORD translated "justified" in places like Romans 5:9 and 8:30. Thus, Paul identifies our justification as predicated on our death with Christ which he clearly states occurs in baptism.

8. Would you disagree that all whom God justifies, He also regenerates and adopts?
8a. If no, would you then affirm one can be justified but neither regenerate nor adopted into the family if God?
8b. If yes to 8, if God regenerates and adopts all who He justifies, would you see this as a process, or as a simultaneous event?

Regeneration includes both water and Spirit. Justification is part of salvation, and justification is, according to Paul, something that happens when we die to sin and come alive to God, which according to Romans 6 occurs in baptism.

9. Is baptism specifically invoking the name of Jesus required by God as a condition in order to be justified?

Acts 22:16 joins calling on the name of the Lord and washing away sins with baptism. There is no baptism without the Lord's name being invoked, and since Romans 6 locates justification in our death with Christ in baptism by faith, there is no justification afforded apart from or without the name of the Lord.

10. Is receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues required by God in order to be justified, or as a sign of previous justification?

Receiving the Spirit is being born of the Spirit. Regeneration, however, requires BOTH water and Spirit. The Bible does not slice and dice salvation into multiple components as if they were seperable, so neither do I. You shouldn't either. Salvation is a holistic reality, including faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, baptism, Spirit baptism, works meet for repentance, crucifying of the flesh, being led by the Spirit of God, being elected or chosen by God, being sealed by God, being placed into the body of Christ, etc etc etc. Thus we were saved, we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. Trying to separate all these things only leads to confusion.

And a few questions in regard to your held views:
11. Why did Jesus state so many times that to believe in Him was to enter into or possess eternal life?

Because it is the truth. Some, however, erroneously separate belief from repentance, baptism, regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc etc as if "believing in Jesus" could somehow exclude one or more of those things. The apostles never taught it like that.

11a. Does not your position have to nuance and redefine belief to mean-be baptized in Jesus name, speak in tongues, and keep standards?

No, I simply take "believe" as it is presented in the Scripture and refuse to strip it of all it's meaning in order to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.

Does not even David Bernard add a small paragraph in his commentary on Romans after discussing justification by faith, redefining it as the 3 step method? Must oneness pentecostals necessarily redefine basic terms and have their own religious lingo, in like manner as JWs, Mormons, and SDAs?

Ask him. I don't redefine anything. I define terms according to the Bible usage. Others do redefine terms, though, like those who redefine faith and belief to mean nothing much more than "thinking yourself a saved Christian".

12. In a brief paragraph can you explain how the 3 step view is in harmony and not contradictory to passages such as Romans 3:21-5:1 and the entire book of Galatians?

You want a brief paragraph explaining salvation in the context of two chapters of Romans and the entire book of Galatians? Please.

13. If in your view baptism washes away sins, thus is actually effectual and 100% necessary to salvation, and yet the Baptism of the Spirit is necessary to salvation, evidenced ONLY/primarily with the speaking of tongues, on what basis will the repentant and baptized believer be lost who does not speak in tongues? If all their sins are washed away, thus paid for by the blood of Christ, what would they go to hell for?

Not believing. Nobody fails to receive the Spirit unless they fail to have faith. Does it seem strange to you that a person should be lost because they don't have faith in Christ? And such a loss brings into question their faith at baptism - did they really have any? And furthermore, upon what basis do you suppose a genuinely born again believer would be lost who falls from grace into a false sense of justification by works? Do you believe once saved, never can be lost?

14. If baptism is necessary to be cleansed from sin, why do people sometimes receive the Spirit BEFORE baptism? (As in Acts 10:45-48) Doesn't this fact alone mean that baptism cannot be the point in time in which sins are forgiven?

Not necessarily. But look at Acts 10:15 and verse 28. When was Cornelius cleansed by God? Apparently he was already cleansed before Peter ever preached to him...

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Again, you jump over the substance and introduce red herrings. I'll respond to these 3 then reintroduce the previous thought:

1)Simply incorrect, there were accounts of people who spoke in tongues, the Montanists are the most prolific of such groups, Augustine seems to refer to it, numerous mystics in the Middle Ages claimed to or a similar experience, some reports say this happened in the Weslyan Revivals, the first Great Awakening in America, the Cane Ridge Revival, and so on. There are scattered claims of tongues speaking throughout church history, along with some bizarre claims of other things. But throughough church history until the 20th century, the people who spoke in tongues did not baptize in Jesus name, and with very rare exceptions they were all trinitarian. So according to your view they were all lost, so why does that matter? This is my point, your view is so inconsistent its only logical conclusion is to condemn to hell essentially any Christian anywhere from the time of the apostle John until the time of RE McCallister at Arroyo Seco in 1913.

2)Not at all. In fact I have serious doubts about one of the great heros of the Reformation, John Calvin. I don't think theres any question there will be people who claimed to be Christians who go to hell. There's no doubt there are false converts, and there's a real question about the way oneness pentecostals use Matthew 7:21-23. OPs often use it toward all these Christians in history who weren't like them. I think the better application is the many people of the church who persecuted other believers, and the many charlatins of all ages, rampant in our age. To name names, The Copelands, Dollars,Rob Bell's, Steven Furticks, Todd Bentley's, Bill Johnsons of the world. People who are simply not Christian. I do not believe this verse is speaking of say, Hudson Taylor, who goes and gives his life for the people of China, or William Tyndale who so believes in getting the Word of God to people in their own language so that he is burned alive at the stake. Or to the anabaptists who wanted to so identify with Christ by their own believers baptism, despite the fact they were baptized as babies, that they were ruthlessly tortured and taken out to rivers and drowned to death. I don't think it applies to John Newton who lived his life in regret over his sinful days, authoring the beloved hymn Amazing Grace. I think to apply Matthew 7:21-23 to such people as these simply because they didn't have the correct words spoken over them at baptism and they didn't speak in esctatic language that no one understands, is a gross misapplication of te scripture.

Beyond that, I honestly think there will be oneness people who will be caught up in that judgment. People who are hateful, judgemental, and callous in the name of being "uncompromising" and "standing for the old paths". I think we should allow Matthew 7:21-23 as a warning to us all, rather than just thinking it applies to them, over there, who aren't like us.

3)Again, not at all, the scripture is clear God uses unbelievers all the time. Balaams donkey, Pharoh, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Annas, Caiphas, even Judas Iscariot and Demas. I think God is using Donald Trump to some degree, and I don't believe Trump has a regenerate bone in his body. I guess it depends on your view of the sovereignty and providence of God as to how much he uses certain people. I'd argue that God is essentially using whom He wills to accomplish His purposes.

Okay, after finally reading through your whole post, I'm a little confused. If you agree with me about the points I brought up, then what's the issue? If you agree that there were people who spoke in tongues through the ages, if you agree that just because people claim to be part of the body of Christ, that it doesn't necessarily make it so and if you agree with me that unsaved people can be used of God and still be unsaved, I'm not sure what your remaining argument is.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Now then, a simple question, in your opinion, knowing that all of the men I listed above were not baptized in Jesus name and did not speak in tongues, do you believe all of them to be lost, and as such burning in hell this very moment? Huss, Wesley, Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Edwards, Ravenhill, Wilkerson, etc. A simple question.

You say these names as if their historical significance should automatically entitle them to salvation. If they were not saved according to the Apostles' doctrine, then they are lost. It's as simple as that. I'm not going to tell you who is and is not in hell, because I didn't know a single one of them.

All I can tell you is what the Bible teaches. And if someone does not do as God's Word instructs, then they are lost.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

It's midnight here, and I have work in the morning, so I'll try to write up a proper response later.

E, you didnt really address much of my post, lumping in 1 to 7 with a short paragraph was glossing over the questions without answering any.

Jito, if you read my posts and came to the conclusion we agree on soteriology, read them again.

Its late here too, just got in, will maybe go a little deeper into both these responses soon.

[Amanah]

Jason

as you said, we can agree on repentance.

Scripture says, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. so we need baptism. The Biblical method is to baptize in Jesus name, why wouldn't you do that?

Scripture also says that the HG is the earnest of our inheritance, and without the down payment we are not going to heaven, so we need the Holy Ghost.

When you receive the Holy Ghost, out of your belly flows rivers of living water. Without the release of the Spirit in the lives of believers you won't have the gifts of the Spirit in operation. A group of people who don't have the Spirit in operation when they meet can hardly be called the body of Christ.

Why would anyone not want to follow the teachings of the Apostles and why would they not want the operation of the spirit when they meet?

[mfblume]

The whole problem with one steppers is they think because baptism is a physical act that it can only be salvation by works if we say it's necessary fro salvation. None of them believe Ro 6:3 refers to water baptism. None of them. 1 Peter 3 through 4 proves it is water baptism when you compare Peter's words with Romans 6..

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem with one steppers is they think because baptism is a physical act that it can only be salvation by works if we say it's necessary for salvation.

The problems are that if you say that baptism is necessary for salvation that
1)Salvation is based on a "work" or ritual that we do and not on Christ. There is nothing wrong with baptism, it is holy, righteous, and a commandment of the Lord. However the simple ritual is no more effective to regenerate us than doing other pious works equally commanded such as prayer, the Lord Supper, scripture reading, church attendance or giving alms. *IF* baptism in the most literal sense does indeed actually save us, then the work of Christ becomes secondary to our own. NONE of this is a denegration of baptism, which I, as a "one stepper" affirm to be a vital part of the Christian experience. As I've said many times, the man who is justified by faith will be baptized if there is any opportunity to do so.

2)If you say it's necessary for salvation, then you have to say in what way. The normative answer is "the forgiveness of sins" or similar "the washing away of sins". Now then if these things are literal and not figurative, we again have a big problem, because the WHOLE of New Testament revelation (to say nothing of early church practice) does not support this view. Specifically the detailed teaching of Paul on justification by faith in his epistles, especially Romans and Galatians, nor the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, nor the epistle of John which is written specifically so that we can know that we have eternal life, as a test for every believer. But it has a bigger problem....

3)If one asserts baptism is necessary for salvation,and that baptism forgives sin, Acts 10:45 forever destroys that view. If indeed baptism is what cleanses us in the literal sense, and indeed it is at baptism that God forgives our sins, then it is impossible for a person to receive the Holy Ghost (thus be regerated/born again) while still in sin. Twist the scriptures as one will, if sin is forgiven in baptism, this is an insurmountable mountain of a problem. Oh, I know, we then make a distinction between remission and forgivenss, but of course such an interpretation falls apart once we move out of the KJV which uses both terms for the same word) into the Greek.

This position is simply untenable. It will not hold up, but its not unique to oneness pentecostals. Catholics and Church of Christ share this view of baptismal regeneration.

Originally Posted by mfblume

None of them believe Ro 6:3 refers to water baptism. None of them. 1 Peter 3 through 4 proves it is water baptism when you compare Peter's words with Romans 6..

None?

I do. Have never been convinced Romans 6:3 refers to Spirit baptism. I am aware of the argument, but I do not think it fits the context.