http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/baker12.htm
Baker’s Dozen:
A Review of Chapter 65 of A Dispensational Theology concerning its Twelve Points which Allegedly Prove that the Church of Paul’s Epistles is Different from the Church that Existed at Pentecost
1. “There was already a church in existence at Pentecost. The Scripture does not say that the believers at Pentecost were formed into the church. It says they were added to the church (Acts 2:41). A thing must first exist before anything can be added to it” (Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 483).
ANSWER: Baker fails to distinguish between two clear-cut groups that are found present on the day of Pentecost. First there was the group that was assembled in Acts 2:1 which was made up of the 120 disciples mentioned in Acts 1:15. It was on these that the Spirit was poured out in such a remarkable way as recorded in Acts 2:2-13. These 120 disciples were the first recipients of the Spirit and thus the first members of the church. The second clear-cut group at Pentecost was the multitude of unsaved Jews out of which about 3000 were saved as the result of Peter’s preaching (Acts 2:41). So it makes good sense to say that the 3000 were added to the saved body of 120 that already existed.
2. “Peter’s preaching at Pentecost proclaimed the fact that Israel’s LAST DAYS had arrived (Acts 2:17), not the FIRST DAYS of the Body of Christ. Israel’s last days does not mean the last days of the existence of the nation of Israel, but those days predicted to usher in the glorious Kingdom” (Baker, Ibid., p. 483).
ANSWER: Peter did not proclaim that Israel’s LAST DAYS had arrived. What he did do was this: He quoted from a prophecy in Joel which included a number of things which had no relevance to the day of Pentecost. Here is a list of things mentioned in Joel’s prophecy which did not happen at Pentecost: 1) The Spirit was not poured out on all flesh (it was merely poured out on 120 believers); 2) No one saw visions or had dreams; 3) There were no spectacular wonders in heaven above, nor were there signs in the earth such as Joel mentions; 4) The sun was not turned into darkness; 5) the moon was not turned into blood. Why then did Peter quote from Joel’s prophecy? There were two things which Joel mentioned which also took place at Pentecost: 1) There was a supernatural outpouring of the Spirit of God (this was Peter’s answer to the false charge of drunkenness (see verses 13,15): “No, we are not drunk, but we are experiencing a supernatural outpouring of the Spirit similar, in some ways, to what Joel predicted would happen in Israel’s last days.” 2) Those who would call upon the Name of the Lord would be saved (Acts 2:21).
3. “The title, ‘the Church which is His Body,’ is distinctive with Paul. This expression is not used at Pentecost or in other New Testament writings. It might be argued that Paul sometimes refers to the Church without using the full expression: “the Church which is His Body,” and that, therefore, the use of the word “church” in the Pentecost account may in like manner refer to the Body of Christ. There is, however, this difference. When Paul uses the expression “the Church which is His Body,” he is implying that there are other churches or another church which is not His Body. If we should be sent to a certain city and be told to go to a hotel which is called the Biltmore, we would take it for granted there were other hotels in the city, otherwise, why specify the Biltmore?” (Baker, Ibid., p. 483).
ANSWER: More likely Paul is revealing additional truth. The church was formed in Acts 2. Later revelation showed that the church was Christ’s body. The use of the term “body” is that of an analogy and describes how the church functions in relationship to its head who is Christ. To specify a hotel as the Biltmore is to name it but not describe it. Paul was not using the phrase “the Church which is His Body” to differentiate between two or more churches but was using the phrase to describe the relationship of the Church to Christ.
4. “Pentecost was one of the annual Jewish feast days which depict God’s redemptive dealings with Israel in the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. Whatever Pentecost meant, it is evident that it must have had primary, if not exclusive, reference to Israel. Doubtless all will agree that there was a typology connected with the seven annual feasts of Lev. 23. These feasts were given to Israel. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel….” It would seem strange indeed if the typology of these feasts of Israel had no reference whatsoever to Israel. In fact, most dispensational commentators refer all of the other six feasts to Israel, and isolate Pentecost and claim that this one does not refer to Israel but to the Gentiles in this dispensation when Israel is set aside” (Baker, Ibid., p. 483)
ANSWER: Baker seems to be making this statement: “If Pentecost involves the church, as dispensationalists teach, then it cannot have anything to do with Israel. But if it involves Israel, then it cannot have anything to do with the church.” However the two are not mutually exclusive. It is obvious that Pentecost is all about Israel! All of the thousands of people present on that day were Jews! God was dealing with Israel in a very special and unique way. God poured out His Spirit upon the believing Jews in a remarkable way. When the church began at Pentecost it was totally an Israelite assembly. There were no Gentiles, only saved Jews. Pentecost was a unique, opportune time for the Lord to form the church out of saved Israel for His own purposes. The gospel went to the “Jew first” (Romans 1:16). Paul himself taught that in the church age there would be a saved remnant of Jews according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5). It was the Jews who were first added to the Lord to form a very unique organism, the nature and purpose of which would be progressively revealed (compare John 16:12). These Jews knew that Christ was their promised Messiah and that He had died for them and rose again, but they knew little of church truth. God would teach them in His time. [Illustration: Consider a person coming to know Christ today. The moment he is saved he becomes regenerated, sealed with the Spirit, indwelt by the Spirit, baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, etc. But he probably doesn’t know any of these things. All he knows is that he was a guilty sinner and that Christ died for him and rose again and that whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life. These other truths will be learned gradually in time].
5. “Paul teaches that it was because of the casting away of Israel that his message of reconciliation had been sent to the Gentiles. But at Pentecost Israel had not yet been cast away. The Jew, like the Gentile, had to be alienated from God before both Jews and Gentiles could be reconciled to God in one body. This is why Israel had to be cast away nationally before God could offer reconciliation to the world and form the Body of Christ. This fact is brought out in Rom. 11:15, 32; and Eph. 2:17. If anything is evident from the record it is that God had not yet set Israel aside at Pentecost. The fact that Peter’s first two sermons are addressed exclusively to Israel should be sufficient proof of this, but there can be no gain-saying of this when Peter plainly declares: “Unto you (Israel) first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities: (Acts 3:26)” (Baker, Ibid., p. 484).
ANSWER: Israel was set aside because they rejected the gospel. They rejected their Saviour: “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not” (John 1:11). When did they reject the gospel? They rejected it in the person of their King in the Gospels and they rejected it all through the book of Acts. Christ pronounced judgment upon the leaders of Israel in Matthew 11-12 and also in Matthew 23 (see especially Matthew 11:20-24; 12:38-42; 23:37-38). Romans 11 would have been written about 56 or 57 A.D. Ephesians 2 would have been written in the early 60’s A.D. Acts 2 would have occurred in the early 30s A.D. (see Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament). So by the time Paul wrote the books of Romans and Ephesians Israel’s rejection of Christ was set in cement. When does Baker say that Israel finally rejected Christ and was set aside? Acts 13? The fact of the matter is that Israel, as a nation, rejected Christ consistently throughout the gospels and throughout the book of Acts. Only a very small remnant of Jews believed. But God in His mercy and grace sent His gospel message to the Jewish people even after they had crucified His Son. “To the Jew first!”
6. “Not only was Israel not cast away at Pentecost, but it is here that we find the first real offer of the Kingdom to Israel. It was because of their rejection of the King and the Kingdom that a new dispensation under Paul was ushered in. Many dispensationalists have taught that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel in the Gospels and that they rejected it by crucifying Him. Then on the day of Pentecost Israel was set aside and the new Gentile dispensation began. Evidence given in the point immediately above is proof that Israel was still in covenant relation with the Lord at Pentecost. It is true that the kingdom was preached as being “at hand” by Christ (Matt. 4:17; 10:7), but this is not to say that the kingdom could have been offered in the sense that it might have been established before the death of Christ. The prophets testified the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow (1 Pet. 1:11). Christ Himself plainly stated this fact: “But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation: (Lk. 17:25 cf. 24:26). And that the rejection of Christ in His incarnation was not the unpardonable sin is also plainly stated by Christ: “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him; neither in this world, neither in the world to come” (Matt.12:32). In fact, that is why Christ prayed for Israel on the Cross: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). And it was because God answered that prayer of His Son that Peter could preach to the very ones who had crucified Jesus: “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts 3:17-18). And the very next word in the Greek text is “therefore”; therefore, because all have been fulfilled regarding His sufferings, if you will repent and be converted, God will send back Jesus Christ. Here the kingdom is not merely at hand; it is being offered with nothing standing in the way but Israel’s continued rejection of Christ. The point is that God’s offer to send back Jesus Christ to usher in the times of the restoration of all things would surely have been insincere had He already cast Israel aside and begun a new dispensation” (Baker, Ibid., p. 484-485).
ANSWER: It seems quite a stretch to say that the first real offer of the Kingdom to Israel was in Acts 2. We recognize that if the Jews had received and embraced Christ as their King, He would still have had to die on the cross for the sins of the world. William MacDonald suggests that Acts 3:21 shows that God through His foreknowledge knew “Israel would reject Christ, and that the present age of grace would intervene before His Second Coming” (MacDonald, Ibid., p. 1593). The mysteries revealed in Matthew 13 indicate that there would be a period of time between the two advents, when the King is absent from earth, when God’s Word would be preached, but for the most part rejected (parable of the Sower, etc.). God’s offer to send Jesus Christ back to “usher in the times of the restoration of all things” was not insincere. Actually Baker’s point is hypothetical. God could make a sincere offer but in his foreknowledge He knew acceptance of His offer would not occur.
7. “The Body of Christ is a joint-body of Jews and Gentiles, but at Pentecost there is no mention of the Gentiles. The message is directed specifically to, and only to, the men of Israel. There were doubtless many Gentiles in Jerusalem at that time, at least, we know there was a Roman garrison there. Had Peter known that Israel had been cast aside and that God was beginning a new Gentile dispensation, it is very strange that he constantly addresses his message to the men of Israel and never mentions the Gentiles” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485).
ANSWER: Yes, the body of Christ IS a joint-body of Jews and Gentiles, but at the beginning it was not. At the beginning it was 100% Israelites and stayed that way until the first Samaritans (Acts 8) and Gentiles (Acts 10) were saved. At some point in the first century there was a 50% blend of Jews and Gentiles, but as time went on more and more Gentiles got saved and fewer and fewer Jews. Today, [with sadness we say this], the percentage of Jews is so minute that it is probably safe to say that 99% or more of the church is composed of Gentile believers and the true Israel of God (the present Jewish remnant according to the election of grace—Rom. 11:5) is very tiny part of the whole. You may have been a part of a local assembly in which (sad to say) there were no saved Jews at all. The believers were all saved Gentiles. This is not an unusual situation in many churches today, even though we would certainly desire to have in our assemblies those who are saved Jews. Because a church is not a joint-body of Jews and Gentiles (at any point in time), does this mean that it is not a true local church? Obviously not. God saves people and adds them to His body as it pleases Him.
8. “A part of the Pentecostal celebration was the presentation of the two “wave loaves” as described in Leviticus 23:17-20. Acts 2 dispensationalists interpret these two loaves as representing Jews and Gentiles being brought into the Church of this dispensation. This could not be, since the Church of this dispensation was hidden from men in all former ages. It has been suggested that the two loaves represent the two houses of Israel which will be united in the Kingdom (Ezekiel 37:15-22). The Body of Christ is not two loaves. Rather, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 10:17 that we are one loaf” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485).
ANSWER: Baker’s position is very weak if he must argue from typology. One’s prior understanding of the significance of Pentecost will determine the identification of the antitype. Since Baker has already determined that the church which is His body cannot be found in Acts 2, then it’s obvious that he must find some other anti-type. He chooses the two houses of Israel, and yet there is nothing in the context of Acts 2 that has anything to do with the re-uniting of the two houses of Israel in the Kingdom.
9. “At Pentecost the believers received water baptism for the remission of sins. There is no record that Paul ever practiced baptism for this purpose. In fact, water baptism was not even a part of his commission (1 Corinthians 1:17)” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485).
ANSWER: This objection by Baker indicates a very serious flaw in his theology. He seems to be teaching that during the early period of Acts water baptism was one of the requirements for salvation. This is a serious distortion of the grace of God. One of Baker's associates, C. R. Stam, even went so far as to write that "...while the commission to the eleven did stipulate water baptism as a requirement for salvation and designate miraculous signs as evidences of salvation, this commission was superceded by another, as the twelve apostles were superseded by Paul" (Cornelius R. Stam, Baptism and the Bible). People have never been saved by works and have never been saved by water baptism. Saints of all dispensations have always been saved in only one way: BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. It is not of works. It is not of yourselves. It is not by water baptism. Salvation is only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The only requirement is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31). Baker, of course, also believes that the Great Commission along with its command concerning water baptism (Matthew 28:18-20) is not for the church today.
For a detailed study of how water baptism relates to salvation, see: Does Water Baptism Save? A Biblical Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration
The believers were baptized BECAUSE of the remission of sins. As Ryrie has pointed out “The Greek preposition eis, for, has this meaning “because of” not only here but also in such a passage as Matthew 12:41 where the meaning can only be “they repented because of [not in order to] the preaching of Jonah” (Charles C. Ryrie, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 24). As for I Cor. 1:17 Paul is merely making the point that “his main business was not to baptize” (MacDonald, Ibid., p. 1749). Earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16 Paul indicated that he had baptized believers at Corinth. Paul baptized believers in water but Charles Baker and his followers do not.
While Ryrie’s understanding of Acts 2:38 (see above paragraph) is valid and grammatically possible, there is another way to understand Acts 2:38 which also avoids falling into the error of baptismal regeneration:
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).
This passage has become one of the favorite verses of those who teach baptismal regeneration. Placed in a motel room was a Gideon Bible and near the front cover there was a section with John 3:16 written out in many different languages. In this particular Bible someone had crossed out all of the John 3:16 verses and in big letters had written ACTS 2:38. The person who had defaced this Bible was communicating something like this: “You are deceived if you think that John 3:16 presents the true gospel. It doesn’t present the true gospel at all. It’s not enough to believe in Christ. To be saved and to be forgiven a person also needs to be baptized in water. The true gospel is much better presented in ACTS 2:38!”
When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.
What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.
Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: “Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).
In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).
True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour.
Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why does Peter say nothing of this in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why does Peter say nothing of this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”). If water baptism is an essential part of the preaching of salvation, then why does Luke 24:46-47 mention repentance and the remission (forgiveness) of sins but say nothing about water baptism? Even in the days of John the Baptist, it was repentance that was for the remission of sins, not water baptism (see Mark 1:4). John's baptism was an outward demonstration to show publicly that repentance had already taken place.
Forgiveness is received at the point of repentance/faith, not at the point of water baptism. Those who are not forgiven should not be baptized. They are yet in their sins. One simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
The real question centers on the meaning of the preposition eis (translated "for" in the KJV). It is possible to show examples where eis can mean "because of" (Matthew 12:41--"at") or "on the basis of" or "with reference to," and all of these are certainly grammatically possible. However, it seems more natural and more probable that in Acts 2:38 this preposition indicates purpose or result. Peter was preaching to unsaved Jews who were guilty of crucifying Christ. They desperately needed the forgiveness of sins (as we all do). Peter was telling them what they must do in order to have forgiveness (see Acts 2:37---"What shall we do?").
The translations seem to support this meaning. The KJV, NASB, Amplified, NEB, RSV all give the rendering "for." The Revised Version has "unto." The NIV has "so that your sins will be forgiven" (although in later editions this was changed to "for"). You can see how a person believing in baptismal regeneration could easily use all of these translations to support his view.
The lexicons seem to support this meaning. Arndt & Gingrich say that the preposition here denotes purpose ("in order to") and they render the phrase: "for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven." Thayer has a similar rendering "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (his discussion under baptizo). Thus those who believe that a man is saved by water baptism would gladly appeal to these authorities.
Acts 3:19 seems to support this meaning of the preposition “eis.” This is the very next sermon that Peter gives, and again he tells the Jews what they must do to have forgiveness. We would expect that what Peter told the Jews in Acts 3 would be similar to what he told them in Acts 2. In both cases he was preaching to unsaved Jews under similar circumstances. In Acts 3:19 once again the preposition eis is used, and the KJV translates it "so that your sins might be blotted out." Of course, those who teach baptismal regeneration do not make much of this verse because water baptism is not even mentioned.
The grammarians also concede that the preposition may be translated "for the purpose of' or "in order that" (see Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 104). Those such as A.T.Robinson and Julius Mantey who render it “because of” or “on the basis of” do so primarily on the basis of theology, not grammar. They suggest a rare usage for the term in order to not make the verse teach baptismal regeneration. But are we really forced to depart from what seems to be the more natural and more common rendering?
Most commentators, regardless of the view they hold, understand the prepositional phrase ("for the remission of sins") as belonging with the verb "be baptized." It is possible, however, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent." The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:
A. Repent
B. Be Baptized
B. In the Name of Jesus Christ
A. For the remission of sins
In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis: "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins." This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis). In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"
Indeed, the Bible consistently connects "repentance" with "the forgiveness of sins" (see Luke 24:47 where Peter received his commission; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 5:31). On the day of Pentecost the Jews would have understood this because the only baptism that they knew about was the baptism of John which was a baptism of repentance UNTO (eis) the remission of sins.
The strengths of this view are as follows: 1) it is theologically sound and avoids the error of making water baptism a condition for forgiveness; 2) it harmonizes with the other passages which speak about repentance and the forgiveness of sins; 3) it understands the preposition eis in its most natural meaning (though other meanings are possible); 4) it agrees with the parallel passage of Acts 3:19; 5) it best suits the context of Acts 2:38 where Peter is offering forgiveness to Christ-rejecting Jews. Peter was not speaking "with reference to" or "because of" or "on the basis of" a forgiveness which they did not yet have! 6) it employs a figure of speech (chiasmus) that was not uncommon or unusual to the Semitic mind, though in English it may seem somewhat awkward.
Stanley D. Toussaint (The Book of Acts in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 359) gives several reasons why the parenthetical view is the correct view:
Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb "repent" is plural ["repent ye"] and so is the pronoun "your" in the clause, "so that your sins may be forgiven" (lit., "unto the remission of your sins," (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon). Therefore the verb "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative "be baptized" is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression "sins may be forgiven" (aphesis harmartion) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.
10. “At Pentecost there is no indication that the Spirit baptism was forming a new Body. To the contrary it is stated that this baptism resulted in receiving Power from on high (Luke 24:49). This baptism was experiential, resulting in great signs and wonders. The baptism which forms the Body is not experiential. There is no sensation or feeling when the Spirit does his work. At Pentecost Christ was the Baptizer. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485).
ANSWER: Why must the Scriptures indicate that Spirit baptism was forming the body of Christ at Pentecost? Why could it not progressively be revealed later in the Scriptures? As MacDonald observes “there are four communities of believers in the Book of Acts, and the order of events in connection with the reception of the Holy Spirit is different in each case” (MacDonald, Ibid., p 1597). The prophecy of Luke 24:49 was fulfilled in Acts 2. The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:1-7 are all unique from each other for God’s purpose. Once each initial group had received the Holy Spirit there would not be any reason to continue these unique experiences of receiving the Spirit.
11. “At Pentecost Christ was the Baptizer, baptizing with or in the Holy Spirit. In Corinthians 12:13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer, baptizing into Christ” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485).
ANSWER: Actually the Greek constructions are basically the same in Acts and I Corinthians 12:13. As Zeller writes:
But someone might raise an objection and say, "The Spirit baptism mentioned in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 is different from the Spirit baptism mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13. In Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 Christ is the Baptizer, but in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer. As we read the English Bible this seems to be the case, but the Greek construction of Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 is practically identical to 1 Corinthians 12:13 as the following chart illustrates.
All four of these passages are talking about the same baptism, and the Greek construction in all four passages is closely equivalent, as the following literal rendering reveals:
Passage
Greek Construction
Matthew. 3:11
He (Christ) shall baptize you with (in) Holy Spirit
Acts 1:5
You You shall be baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) with (in) Holy Spirit
Acts 11:16
You shall be baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) with (in) Holy Spirit
1 Cor. 12:13
We all were be baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) with (in) one Spirit into one body
The order of the words in 1 Corinthians 12:13 has been altered in order to show that the same Greek construction is used. In the King James Version the Greek preposition en is translated "By one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13) which has led some to wrongly conclude that the Spirit is the Baptizer. But the passage should be understood in this way: "With (en) one Spirit were we all baptized( by Christ) into one body (the body of Christ, His Church)" (George Zeller, When Did The Church Begin?, a study published by the Middletown Bible Church).
On the other hand, it is possible that both Christ and the Spirit had a part in doing the baptizing. Christ could have baptized believers into the body by allowing the Spirit to actually do this work. This is illustrated in John 4:1-2. In John 4:1 we are told that Jesus baptized disciples, even more than John the Baptist. In John 4:2 we discover that Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone! How could He baptize many but not baptize anyone? The answer is that Jesus baptized many disciples but He did this by allowing His disciples to be the ones who actually did the work of baptism. It’s possible that this is the case in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Jesus Christ is the Baptizer (in light of Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5, etc.) but the actual work of baptizing was carried out by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the instrument that Christ used to carry out His baptizing work. This concept is not foreign to the New Testament epistles. We would all agree that Jesus saves and yet the actual work of salvation is carried out by the Spirit of God (see 1 Corinthians 9:11).
It is certainly not incorrect to say that Christ immerses His believers into the body of Christ, and thus has rightful claim to the title of the Baptizer. In Matthew 16:18 we learn that it is Christ Himself who will BUILD His church. In Acts 2:47 we learn that it is the Lord (Jesus Christ) who adds to the church daily such as should be saved. Consider also Acts 2:33 where the Lord Jesus is the One who sheds forth the Spirit. The Lord Jesus, in perfect co-operation with the blessed Person of the Holy Spirit, accomplished this great work, to the praise of the glory of His grace.
12. “Finally, and perhaps the most convincing, is the fact that everything that happened at Pentecost was in direct fulfillment of prophecy. Peter quotes Joel and David in Acts 2, and in Acts 3:24 he says: “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.” But Paul says that the truth about the Body of Christ is a “mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints” (Col. 1:24-26). It is very difficult to believe that that which every prophet of old predicted is that which has been hidden from ages and generations. The above twelve reasons are fully supported by the Scripture and surely overweigh any evidence to the contrary that the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the Mystery began on Israel’s feast of Pentecost” (Baker, Ibid., p. 485-486).
ANSWER: This is a common ultradispensational argument: If there is prophecy then there cannot be mystery. In other words, prophecy and the church are mutually exclusive. Where you have one, you can’t have the other.
But this reasoning condemns their very own system because prophecy is also found in Acts 13 and Acts 28 where moderate ultradispensationalists and extreme ultradispensationalists begin the church respectively.
Take Acts 13, for example. Paul’s message given at Antioch in Pisidia is given in verses 14-41. This entire message is immersed in the Old Testament and it ends with a reference to that which was spoken of by the prophets and quotes from Habakkuk 1:5 (see Acts 13:40-41). Later in Acts 13 Paul says, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (Jews); but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (v.46). Paul then indicates that this was in some way a fulfillment of Isaiah 49:6 (see v.47). If I were an ultradispensationalists and wanted to find a place to begin the church which had no connection with O.T. prophecy, I certainly would not want to choose Acts 13.
Acts 28 is similar. Again the Jewish people were rejecting the gospel message and again Paul indicates that “salvation is sent unto the Gentiles and that they will hear it” (v.28). But Paul made this statement based on the great prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10 (see verses 25-27). If prophecy and church are mutually exclusive, then I would not want to begin the church in Acts 28.
We should also keep in mind that, strictly speaking, the Bible never calls the church a mystery. The New Testament mysteries, especially those revealed by Paul, usually relate to some precious aspect of church truth, but never is the church called a mystery.
The concept that church and prophecy are mutually exclusive can easily be disproved. Here are some examples:
1. There is no greater “mystery” chapter than Ephesians chapter 3, and therein we find church truth richly revealed. But immediately following this Paul addresses the subject of the ascended Christ giving gifted men to the church (Eph. 4:7-12) and he quotes from an Old Testament prophecy found in Psalm 68:18!
2. In Ephesians 2 Paul is describing the church as a special and unique temple indwelt by God with Christ as the chief corner stone (compare Isaiah 28:16). In this same context Paul speaks of the fact that Christ is our peace and that out of Jews and Gentiles God has made ONE NEW MAN (v.15) in ONE BODY (v.16), and yet in the very next verse he quotes from Isaiah 57:19!
3. In the very passage in which Paul sets forth the mystery that not all believers shall sleep (1 Cor. 15:51) the prophecy of Isaiah 25:8 is mentioned (verse 53).
4. The great mystery of Ephesians 5:32 is based upon a verse in Genesis 2!
5. Peter sets forth church truth when he says that believers are unique “stones” making up a “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5) but the very next verse quotes the prophecy of Isaiah 28:16!
6. In Romans 9:25-33 Paul sets forth the fact that during this present church age Israel is blinded and God is showing mercy to the Gentiles. Paul uses several prophecies from Old Testament Scriptures to make his point.
7. The gift of tongues is one of the gifts given to the church (1 Cor. 12:10) but Paul cites the prophecy in Isaiah 28:11-12 to explain the significance of this church gift!
Conclusion
Baker’s dozen points are thought provoking but when weighed in the light of Biblical teaching, they are found wanting. The differences between dispensationalists (classic dispensationalists) and ultradispensationalists are many. Baker and other ultradispensationalists try to argue strongly that the church did not start in Acts 2 but they muster very few sound arguments for why they believe it started at some later time (and there is considerable variation in ultradispensational circles as to when the church really began). One of the biggest problems they have is a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 12:13 and the grammar involved, and thus they wrongly teach that there are two Spirit baptisms in the New Testament. They seem to ignore the fact that Paul persecuted “the church of God” or else they claim that the church of God that Paul persecuted was different from the “church which is His body”! Finally, one key question is how soon God has to indicate or reveal a change in His program. Ultradispensationalists have great difficulty believing that God can start a new work and then gradually and progressively reveal the nature and purpose of His new program when and as it pleases Him.
