7 Principles of New Covenant Theology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Today, I welcome Joel Settecase from The Think Institute to discuss the subject of New Covenant Theology. We look at the 7 Principles of New Covenant Theology listed in the book by Blake White (linked here: www.amazon.com...)
Keith was also on Joel’s show talking about Calvinism, and here is a link to that:
• Calvinism: Fact or Fic...
Joel's Catakids Catechism: thethink.insti...
The Think Institute: Thethink.insti...
Worldview Legacy Podcast: pod.link/14627...
Be sure to join the Superior Theology Club on TH-cam to be part of the show!.
Or you can support us by buying the smallest Bible on the market today, go to tinybibles.com and check it out.
Or make a direct donation at Buymeacoffee.com/YourCalvinist
What! Pastor Foskey is a New Covenant, presuppositional, Calvinist, and a nice guy. Yess!! Glad to hear.
Please do more about New Covenant theology! I'd also like to know more about the differences between New Covenant theology and Progressive Covenant theology/Progressive Convenantalism. This video was very helpful! Thank you, brothers, for your time and help!
This is probably my favorite interview so far.
Mine too
You should get Brandon Adam’s who is a 1689 Federalism On your show
@ParkNotes got me to start keeping a journal and a daily reading log. What a surprise to see his brother on the your calvinist podcast! This was a great interview and definitely helpful in understanding new covenant theology. Thank you brothers, and all glory to God!
I am reworking my viewpoint on these things since I leaped into reformation theology. This sounds very sensible.
I just read the Blake White book that they mentioned. It is short and solid. What is New Covenant Theology.
Great discussion....I grew up dispensational, then went to reformed theology and now that I'm reading scripture more closely since looking into NCT (it makes so much more sense when you take passages in context realising to whom the author is speaking to and trying to follow the argument rather than relying on some system of theology for the answers)
This was so good! Take my money, I'm in!
Pastor Foskey, thank you so much for this discussion :)
Yes!! I was the one requesting you to discuss this topic and you have graciously brought us this great session.
42:25
Thank you for discussing infant baptism.
I wholeheartedly agree that the covenant members are those who are born again.
I guess this is where the proposal of St. Gregory of Nazianzus could path a middle way. Young children can be baptized too as soon as they start speaking simple words (~ 3 years old) so that they could give simple answers about the sacrament. This oikonomia seems to also affirm our conviction as credobaptists since credobaptism is "baptism is normatively for believers who can make a profession of faith" and NOT "baptism is for non-infants".
John Reisinger came to my church about 20 years ago, and gave an interesting talk. He pronounced his name with a long /e/ in the 'rei' part, and with a hard /g/ sound.
Seriously, brothers, I'm listening to this over and over just to soak it in. So good.
Makes me think of a very simple teaching I heard in my reformed exploration:
the Law Sandwich: The Law of Moses - Grace (the Gospel) - The Law of Love (Christ)
We will always be under A law (the law of sin or the law of grace/righteousness).
We are not under "The" law, but we are under A law.
Unfolding Mystery by Edmund Clowny is a fantastic book about this.
I have been very interested in NCT for sometime now and really appreciated this episode! I would be extremely interested on more episodes on this topic.
Doug Goodin has a lot of videos on his TH-cam channel, Cross to Crown ministries. He's recently gone through a whole series on New Covenant Theology vs. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, it's been very helpful. 😊
I will be listening to this, but your baptistic presuppositions will determine what gets more focus in your covenantal theology, continuity or discontinuity. Joel of all people as an ideological presuppositionalist would, I think, accept this fact. Since he's a Baptist, he will see more dis than con. The New is in fact new, but it's fulfillment of Old, specifically the promises of God to Abram, Noah, and the Patriarchs, including Moses and David. This continuity is why we baptized our children, and our grandchildren were and will be baptized. I'm looking forward to hearing this discussion because Joel is one of my favorite young Kingdom builders.
The Main Street Bridge and the old Independent Life Building. Love the intro. I moved away from Jax but plan to visit again and I’ll visit your church. Thank you for your videos. And the theobro beard. And cigars.
17:13 Were you thinking of Nicholas G. Piotrowski? His book, In All The Scriptures, handles this issue really well.
He argues that the Old Testament is Christotelic, the New Testament is Christocentric, and that the entire Bible is Christological.
How great was that?? I heard a couple of ouches for my presby friends and hope I get a chance to share this with them. Great conversation! Checking out his channel now.
I really like Joel. We’ve interacted a couple times. The issue of drawing from the Law for wisdom, and some other issues, are what have kept me from adopting NCT, despite agreeing with many of the distinctives.
Due to my work with the Torah movements teaching all Christians should keep the Law of Moses, I’ve come to see that the Moral/ceremonial distinction really is in Scripture, and can be defended, and all of the Law can and should be approached as wisdom literature. Seeing that distinction allows us to see what is what in the Law and lean directly on that which is moral for all people without having to run it through a covenantal framework.
I have a video on my channel called “Torah under Christ” that outlines my position, and the distinctions are early in the video.
Would love to chat with you about this stuff.
Great conversation!
Nice to see you here Bro!
@@TheThinkInstitute you too!
Your problem areas highlighted at end is why I tend to not whole heartedly/unapologetically say I am a new covenant theologian. I think covenant theology has satisfactory answers to a lot of those problems, however, I simpathize greatly with your camp and will continue to have one foot in. The antinomian argument is very real against new covenant theology. If new covenant theology can offer good Biblical arguments for general equity theonomy and government then I will be more convinced, otherwise, you end up being way to close to dispensational theology in your use and understanding of the old covenant as it pertains to the law of God. Both you gentlemen agree that general equity principles are Biblical. New covenant has no answers for why it is Biblical. Give me better answers and I will hop on board. Couple years ago I was about all in for new covenant, now I have strong hesitation.
The problem with both dispensationalism and covenant theology is that they read Scripture through a theological system lens, which causes both the miss, or misunderstand parts of it.
The name you’re looking for Keith is John Reisinger. I think.
I'd appreciate a conversation, not so much a debate, but a dialogue explaining the distinctives of the differing types of covenant theology. Maybe in your bow tie dialogue fashion.
My limited understanding of the Presbyterians is that their view on covenant theology is basically the root of why they baptize infants, and much of what gets Doug Wilson's critics going is his view on these ideas. Much of what you and Joel said went along with my view on amillennialism. I've been digging to understand these views but not sure I'm in the fertile soil yet.
Great discussion brother!
What a wonderful episode! Can’t wait for a part 2.
Hey Joel is on the Foskey, represent brother!
Happy to be here!
POV: In an unironic twist, Baptists take every opportunity to avoid adhering to historic Presbyterian theologies and borrow, reinvent to create a Baptist version of Presbyterian theology and continue to prolong a lack of theological continuity in reformed circles. The presupposition with all Baptists is an assumption of non-conformity to any historical branch of Christianity other than their own.
Shout out to Paul Kaiser 😎 find his Open air preaching videos via search
Brother Paul is the man.
This was such a helpful and interesting discussion! It helped sort some things that had been floating around in my brain 😅
I really appreciate this episode so much, Keith!
This is a great conversation! I have seen myself very connected to the NCT view over other competing interpretational frameworks, as it seems to make the best sense of the NT and how the Apostolic writers read and interpreted the NT in light of Jesus' person, work, and teaching. I would have loved to see perhaps a better discussion around why we hold to a NCT in texts such as Luke 24, Romans 6-8, etc. I have some other comments:
1.) Understanding the use of the Law: NCT proponents are right to emphasize the fact that Christians are not under the Law of Moses, but the way this seems to filter down into churches is a practical antinomianism. The fact is that we *do* have a law in what Christ and the Apostles taught - we have their commandments that often renew/reinterpret Old Testament commands for the church. Things are *New* but there is some continuity between the covenants. I hope that NCT theologians will continue to better define and flesh out how we view the nature of the Law and where the Apostles bring continuity from Old to the New. The OT writings are for the Church for all time, and so we need to be able to go back to the OT and interpret the text apostolically.
2.) Relationship to Israel: this seems like an area where this is a lack of important nuance. There is only one people of God (the elect who believe in the Messiah), and so we should see the ancient saints of the OT as Christians before Christ came. We are united to them. We also need to understand how God is bringing about His purposes in the world: the Jews were hardened to the Gospel in the days of the Apostles, resulting in the Gentiles experiencing the mercies of God. In time, God will intentionally bring about a work of the Spirit that will result in a harvest among the Jews at the end of the age. There is no salvation for anyone outside of Christ. That doesn't preclude that the current nation-state of Israel may still matter in God's timing of the return of Christ. Things that dispensationalists sensationalize, like red heifers, the Sanhedrin, rebuilding the temple - these things may actually happen in our day, but they cannot save the Jews. They can only be saved if they repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
3.) The NT "Lord's Day" vs Jewish Sabbath: I didn't hear a well thought out understanding of the Lord's Day. Apostolic teaching seems very clear that Christians observed a gathering on the Lord's Day to celebrate the resurrection by taking communion, receive instruction, pray, confess their sins, etc. Historic Reformed traditions used their interpretations of Sabbath laws to reinforce this to the church, and there are a number of stories emphasizing this (such as Spurgeon's "prophetic utterance" of a shopkeeper keeping his business open on Sundays). Is there a connection between the OT Sabbath and the NT Lord's Day?
I agree 😊.. Not sure if you've come across Doug Goodin and Cross to Crown ministries. He's NCT and has a live TH-cam stream 1130 EST Monday-Friday. He's been very helpful as he walks through books of the bible and has a large video resource on his website as well. 😊
Brian Rosner “Paul and the Law” NCT use of OT law. In the NSBT series edited by D A Carson.
This so great! Thank you Keith! If you could make more on this subject, that would be awesome!
I still love the theme song. Reminds me of the golden Girls. You should rename your show, “The Golden Calivinist”
Very enjoyable discussion.
I would be curious to see what your take is on the differences between these principles of NCT and Progressive Covenentalism (PC)? But that might require a show. 😅
I am inclined to see PC as one expression of NCT. That the label is more of a branding strategy which immediately locates it between covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism and then revised/classic dispensationalism.
The main idea in PC is that the purpose of the covenants is to progress to the climax expression of the kingdom of God, which is the New Covenant (in both its present and new heavens and earth expressions).
The major argument against the Covenant Theology peeps is that there is motion toward the New Covenant as the primary expression of the grace of God and that the overarching scheme of a covenant of works and grace located in the garden-while soteriologically accurate-are not exegetically biblical covenant structures in scripture.
The major argument against the dispensationalist is that the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were fulfilled to Israel and that they have an eternal anti-type in the consummated kingdom of the future new heavens and earth.
To conclude, I’m not sure I see a place where Progressive Covenantalism departs from the seven principles of NCT listed here. Is that very far off? What might I be missing in this summary?
Thanks for any thoughts!
Thank you. This was very helpful.
The question was raised about if there was a sign for certain Covenants. There apparently is none for the Davidic Covenant. And the word "sign" is never used in the context of the New Covenant. But it is for the Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.
Great topic. Really appreciate it. Much to think over. So if the law can't be broken then into parts then no three uses of the law and no law-gospel distinction? Is that correct?
Not holding to a tripartite distinction does not mean you couldn’t hold to the three uses of the law (it’s two different categories), neither would it preclude a law-gospel distinction. I would definitely hold a law Gospel distinction.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Okay very good. Thanks for clearing that up. Would really appreciate hearing more on this topic as well as the difference with Progressive Covenantalism.
Woah!! Doug Wilson and John Oates in one place?!
Strangely enough, this kinda works.
Great discussion !
Didn’t know you were a NCT guy
Took you for a 1689 Fed
Great guest though - I remember him on Conversations From the Porch Podcast when they were part of BTWN - really good guys miss that show
Good discussion brother though hope to see more - thank you
That intro video is awesome!
You should get Jon English Lee on your show to talk about the issues of progressive covenantalism and NCT. He recently had a book published by Founders on Sabbatarianism.
Didn't realize you subscribed to NCT ....been listening to Doug for years now ....
I actually found Keith because of an earlier interview about NCT
Excellent discussion. Although I must say, I was distracted by how similar Joel's voice is to Jesse Ventura.
Good discussion but I will say I’m not convinced and a little confused. Can you help? Some questions: you’re talking a lot about covenant without defining what you mean. What does it mean to be the covenant people of God? You start the old covenant with Moses. What about Abraham and Adam and God’s ( I would say) “covenant” promises to them that I think new covenant Christians are explicitly tied to? On Moses, how do you deal with 2 Timothy 3:16? Is Moses included in this? You’re basically saying that the NT trumps the OT does that agree with 2 Timothy 3:16? Isn’t Jeremiah 31 a promise to Israel? Why do you then say this is a new covenant people entirely? Explain John 5:45-47? Many more I could ask….
Great conversation. Adam was our father of the fallen race, Jesus is our "everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) of the redeemed human race.
I think NCT, as commonly defined, has a big issue on the applicability of the OT. And you and Joel are right, (which actually pushes you to the Progressive Covenanter side), that the OT has to remain as Scripture for questions of ethics and instruction. Especially since the NT writers used it as such. Otherwise, you.committing the error of dispensationalism, (the OT is only applicable to Israel.)
Hey, could someone link me Kieth's short where he compares megachurch setting up lights & sound vs his own church before a service? I cant find it. Thanks
th-cam.com/users/shortscBg1ehveb1g?si=gsYvfaLJJPHN218k
I only remember his recent #Ofcourse video showing Big Eva with the giant sound board🤷♀️
Maybe try emailing him?
@@resonation6776 I tried copy and paste but I don't think youtube lets me put links. After that site and a forward slash put shorts/cBg1ehveb1g?si=gsYvfaLJJPHN218k
The title is "10K Member Church vs 100 Member Church"
About your second question Keith, about the Exodus and protecting your home, I was wondering how do you see that in light of Matthew 5:43-48? which I think it's pretty clear even if it's not comfortable or what we want
Bar-Jesus? I just wrapped up some sermon prep on Acts 13 so fresh in my memory is Acts 13:6
[6] When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. 😬
We're taking that name back!
@@TheThinkInstitute It’s a good name!
Christ Over All has a nice Article by Richard Lucas called Comparing 1689 Federalism and Progressive Covenantalism. At least the Chart is nice. It has Covenant theology, 1689, and PC compared on a number of issues.
The explanation of traditional CT (12:10-12:39) was incomplete. It left out the critical component of "one covenant in two administrations" vs. "progressive revelation of the covenants" and made it sound like paedobaptism is the only valid means of doing traditional CT. I understand the need for brevity, but key ideas like this are important to keep the message from being lost. (Maybe he hits on this later...haven't finished yet. But if I wait, at my age, I'll have forgotten this ever happened. 😳 )
We did discuss Baptist covenant theology, which is what I think you are referring to there.
In the point you are referring to, I think Joel was simply laying out the two extreme ends of Classic Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology.
Again, it’s hard to say everting needed in the short time of a podcast. But we were trying
It’s been my understanding for a while now that Covenant theology and Dispensationalism are two tools that are needed to rightly divide the scriptures.
New Covenant theology is closer to the way I understand the scriptures.
I disagree with the replacement theology though.
The commandment is righteous and good. Love fulfills the law. Law is for the ungodly...
Of course the law, which is just, which works are written on the heart of the nations, is a place to create laws from. 🤷🏻♂️
Argument for the Christocentric - Luther, you know the reformer who didn't use a covenant theology instead a theology of the cross....
Wellum ditched NCT because it's just dispensationalism lite... And he didn't want to be associated with it.
Looked up that movie on IMDB from 1986 God’s Outlaw about William Tyndale starring Roger Rees. Honestly never heard of anyone starring in the movie🤷♀️Was it a good movie and worth watching?
Yes it’s a great movie!
Magnum PI DOESN'T drive a Subaru
Keith, I have enjoyed many of your videos. One of the reasons I have appreciated your videos on many different subjects is because you have always been charitable to those that you would not agree. While at the same time sharing your own convictions with humility and humor. I try to do the same. I attend a Southern Baptist church that is primarily dispensational, but because of our reformed theology we have many members who are covenantal. Conversations regarding our differences must be truthful, gentle, kind, and charitable. At times they can get tense because our conclusions/understandings are being confronted. As I began watching this video I was really hopeful to hear about the new covenantal theology and its distinctions and possibly scripture to find where the theology originates. However, due to the uncharitable mischaracterizations and claims regarding dispensationalists I have decided to unfollow your channel and not watch anymore. I don't expect us to agree. But I do expect that the claims be cited. I have never heard my pastor or John MacArthur or Michael Vlach (prominent dispensational teachers) say the "great parenthesis"... I believe the way Joel explained the differences between covenantal vs dispensational was not equitable. It would have been best for him to quote someone who is dispensational and then contrast with his view. Of course maybe SOME people use the "great parenthesis" but I have never heard it. Also, his further explanation of dispensational was not accurate. He used all the common words but used them incorrectly. I would hope that if I were to explain covenantalism to someone I would not do it the way it was done in this video. We know "wisdom" and "understanding" come from God alone because we fear God. Each of us are given wisdom and understanding as God allows and brings clarity through sanctification. As such, we should do better to share his truth knowing God is the one who will enable us to understand. I hope you will listen to this yourself and think about your brothers and sisters whom God has given a dispensational understanding. By the way, I have never read John Darby or read any of the early dispensational beliefs. I do not hold to traditional dispensationalism and most of those I know don't either. The major difference between dispensational and covenantal is Israel vs Church. Most of us get our understanding of the relationship in Romans 9-11. I hope and pray God honoring conversations can continue to happen regarding this subject, but I wont be watching it on your channel. I hope you will reconsider how you discuss this subject in the future.
Keith is always very charitable and I wouldn't stop watching him based off what a guest he had on said. I do believe they were talking about classic dispensationalism. Even MacArthur would say he is a leaky dispensationalist. I think they were charitable as a whole. There as so many different views of dispensationalism and covenant theology as well that it is hard to mention every single nuance. I think he was speaking of the view as a whole, while many newer dispy guys would have differences from the classical position.
I don’t know if you will see my response since you’ve decided to stop following the channel. But here are a few thoughts about what you’ve written. First, I am genuinely surprised by your critique. Especially regarding the term parenthesis. This is not a novel concept in dispensationalism. I went to a dispensational seminary and have read that phrase in books which are published by dispensational authors. So I did not consider it slander or misuse to use the term. I can find and cite these sources if necessary. You may not have heard it, and that is good - I would hope that language would go away - but that doesn’t mean it has not been used. Secondly, I in no way consider dispensational teachers to be heretical. I’ve had many on my show, have had them preach in our pulpit, and have had them serve even as elders in our church. I am even trying to get Michael Vlach, a man I truly respect, on my show.
You are well within your right to stop listening, though I am sad that you will. I know what we said was not mean spirited, anymore than when John MacArthur said that all Calvinists should be pre-millennial. He was just expressing a conviction, as were Joel and I. There was no anger or malice. So, again, I hope you read my words and reconsider. But if not, no worries. There are other great shows for you to enjoy.
Blessings
Is he saying that in NCT the ten commandments aren’t part of the law of Christ?
This was new to me as well so maybe someone that holds to this position can elaborate, but from what I heard is that the 10 commandments given to Moses are not for us. But the commandments given in the NT are. Which does includes 9 of the 10 commandments(excluding the 4th). Which are not only given but expanded upon.
Dispensationalism is bad M'kay ?
I think more and more people are realizing this, which is great!
I take my Covenant Theology like my Coke. The original is just fine. No need for the "new".
Lol!!
NCT is no Bueno. This is disappointing
Why would you say that? I hold to covenant theology and NCT is not really something I have looked much into but curious your reasonings. Thanks
@@Hartman0914 there's a huge denial of the ongoing validity of God's Law. Consider as but just one point, what Jesus says in John 14:15 and how that relates
@@EmissariesoftheGospel
Doug Goodin has debunked such a misunderstanding of NCT so many times. I recommend his channel to get his materials on NCT.
@JoeThePresbapterian it's not a misunderstanding. I've dealt with many, including the teachers.
But let me put it to you this way, if your view is hostile to theonomy, then you have a seriously wrong view.
If you fundamentally disagree with the Covenanters or the Puritans on the law and civil realm, then that is really poor theology.
If your theology would condemn Calvin's Geneva, then it's errant.
While the places and groups listed above have their differences, they all highlight the errors of NCT.
@EmissariesoftheGospel
Again, this all stems from how we see the dynamics between the old covenant, the new covenant, and the eternal law of God. It stems from our understanding on the law of Moses, whether it can be divided or whether it is a united whole, undivided, and holy.
Time to come out from Paulianity and recognize the Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh, and their endorsement from Yeshua, instead of making stuff up to explain how we don't have to actually "do" anything anymore but "believe in your heart"
Um are you saying that some folks understanding of Christianity is only of Paul? What does Paul say that isn’t in line with Christ?
I hate to say it, but this was very unsatisfying in the sense of answering questions. It raised more questions than it answered.
At some point, Pastor, I think you'll need to talk about this on your own and try to clear some things up. "Like what?" you ask. (Glad you asked. 😉) Like, Blake White's book...the entire blurb on Amazon sells it as making NCT either non- or anti-confessional. Like, he doesn't differentiate between Presbyterian CT and Baptist CT clearly (yes, it was discussed but the ball seemed to get dropped before a fuller explanation of *how* all those in the NC are regenerate...it was stated ipse dixit, but nothing was explained about why it is so). Like, he rejected distinctions in the law but didn't explain then why you (Keith) aren't in sin in this video by wearing a silk tie with a cotton shirt. Like the part where he makes it sound like to be a NCT advocate, one must be a Christian Nationalist. And the antinomian stuff still managed to creep in toward the end (in the Sabbath example...your follow-up cleared it mostly up but it was still there initially).
There are more but this is getting too long...I don't want to write my own book here.
I guess in sum, it appears your guest is still just a bit in his cage stage and that he doesn't understand his opponents' positions well enough to engage them effectively. If the distinctions are broad enough, they need to be made clear to the layman. If they are only nuanced, they likely aren't significant enough over which to divide. (But these days we seem to find it necessary to divide over anything and everything.) When I listen to explanations of these things, I listen in order to find ways to agree/unite. I didn't hear much of that; mostly differences that divide. (I hope this doesn't sound too critical...as you said, this is important, and I want to understand it well enough to take a position that I believe is as biblical as it can get.)
Still lotsa questions, even after over an hour of explanation.
Thanks for your feedback. I don't think of myself as still in the cage stage (I've been in this viewpoint for about a decade), but I'll own any of my failures to explain sufficiently. I just hope this gave some good food for thought for those who are interested in learning more about the NCT viewpoint, which I believe to be the more biblical way.
To fully understand the NCT position, it will likely take more than an hour-long video. I encourage anyone interested in learning more to go down the NCT rabbit hole. It's worth it.
The moral law reflects the very character of God. Sorry, the moral law is eternal. All who are of the Spirit love God and love His law. We seem to have gone backwards since the puritans in depth of understanding.
If it's new, it's probably ______... 😅
I was with you until the baptist nonsense at 43 minutes. The promise is for us and our children. Nowhere is it written to the contrary. Refusing baptism to your household is a great sin. I am guessing that you also insist that baptism is not for the remission of sins.
I was baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit. Two years later, when I heard of water baptism as a ceremonial confession of faith, I was baptized. All my sins had already been washed white as snow.
Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
@@WithoutGodYouCantDoDiddlySquat your sins were washed away in baptism. There is ordinarily no forgiveness apart from the sacrament. No such teaching exists in the scriptures.
You have been misinformed.
Baptism is nowhere described as a ceremonial only procession of faith. On the other hand it is everywhere described as “for the remission of sins.”
@@rogerdubarry8505 Water baptism alone, acknowledging one is a sinner, doesn't save anyone; Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit, when one believes in Him, does.
Acts 19:2-6 NASB95
He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
[3] And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
[4] Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
[5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
Edit:
Apostle Paul didn't baptize people in water.