What is the baptism of the holy spirit all about?

[A New Day]

I was making a reading about the holy spirit and I found the following, I am not sure if they are related to the baptism of the holy spirit or not but I write them however:

1 Samuel 16:13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.

- first what is the baptism of the holy spirit?

Is it to be born again in the spirit that happens once?
Is it something else that can happen many times to indicate a life that is filled with the holy spirit?
If it can happen many times in the life of a person then does it mean that it comes and go or does it mean that the holy spirit dwells in the person to be manifested later?
​

For example I was reading that David had what seems the holy spirit more than once in his life, was that the baptism of the holy spirit everytime?

- what is the purpose of the baptism of the holy spirit?

Was it to preach the bible and that's it?
For example when the apostles on the day of the pentacost were filled with the holy spirit they started to speak in tongues and they started to preach the bible to the nations that was not available to them like today but today it is available to everyone in the world.
​

- if it is a gift can it happen anytime to anyone and today too?

- is the baptism of the holy spirit an inside feeling? or does it always include signs that others can see and what are those signs?

For example some say that with the baptism of the holy spirit there is always speaking in tongues and it is a necessity. is that right?
​

- can speaking in tongues happen without the baptism of the holy spirit? and can speaking in tongues happen many times?

 

[Nanopants]

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord... -Acts 3:19

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. -1 Jhn 2:27

I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." -Gen 12:3

The anointing isn't something that provides a persistent "feeling", but through the gift of the Holy Spirit God Himself teaches us to walk in His ways, and if we do, then there is a persistent outward effect on the world.

 

[zeke37]

For example some say that with the baptism of the holy spirit there is always speaking in tongues and it is a necessity. is that right?
​

- can speaking in tongues happen without the baptism of the holy spirit? and can speaking in tongues happen many times?

one of the largest farces in all Christendom is calling the gift of tongues,
that which we see today in Pentecostal and charismatic circles.

WOW!, it's actually the opposite

ANYONE can mumble and call it what ever they want...
some even believe it's Godly, or God speaking for you, etc.....
some just go along with it....keeping up with the Jones'.

I would suggest that you dismiss it completely and move on.
I checked it out, and it did not take long to realize it was all a sham.

speaking in mumbled-jumbled ecstatic syllables, which no one can understand, is not a gift.

and anyone claiming to understand this goobily gock,
is outright lying or being deceived by dark forces


it's the opposite

and I AM an born again Christian, who prayed with understanding, to God,
so as to know the truth of this subject.
it's been years now, and even since the beginning, it is OBVIOUS that this is a sham/scam


I am a born again Christian who believes he understands 1Cor12-14 properly,
which is perfectly opposite from what we have today in charismatic churches.

it's truly sad....if you wish further clarification, and a verse by verse breakdown of 1Cor14, then PM me and let me know.
i'd be glad to offer it to you.


the gift of tongues exist, even today
but not how we see charismatics practice what they call that gift.


plus, it is paramount to understand that what was seen in ACTS2,
was not that which Paul teaches on in 1COR14
it's a different thing

 

[JAL]

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord... -Acts 3:19

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. -1 Jhn 2:27

I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." -Gen 12:3

The anointing isn't something that provides a persistent "feeling", but through the gift of the Holy Spirit God Himself teaches us to walk in His ways, and if we do, then there is a persistent outward effect on the world.

I suspect much of what you said is true, unfortunately. I believe in the gift of speaking in tongues as a language the partakers do not know (1Cor 14) but I doubt many modern-day Pentecostals actually got the true gift (I'd be surprised if more than 5% have the true gift). In one church they laid hands on me praying for me to receive the gift but kept urging me, as they prayed, "Go ahead and start speaking in tongues by faith." They wore me down with this prodding until I finally assented, but the moment I begin opening my mouth to try to form some syllables they said, "Praise the Lord! That's the gift! You got it!" If that wasn't the most ridiculous moment of my life, I don't know what was.

And yes, I agree that Act 2 is NOT the the gift of tongues described in 1Cor 14. My own view is that Acts is the gift of prophecy, not tongues. The word "tongues" means "languages" (as the Book of Revelation refers to "every nation and every tongue") - the CONTEXT determines, therefore, whether it means the "gift of tongues" or simply "languages". In Acts 2 it wasn't "the gift of tongues" because the audience DID understand it (there was no need for the gift of interpretation described in 1Cor 14. In 1Cor 14 Paul distinguishes two modes;:
(1) A revelation given in a language no one understands. He calls this the gift of tongues.
(2) A revelation given in a language the audience DOES understand. He calls this the gift of prophecy.

Act 2, therefore, was the gift of prophecy. Peter told us so explicitly, he said it was the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit and they SHALL prophesy" (Acts 2:17). Joel said the promise would come with signs and wonders - it was a SIGN and a WONDER that Peter was able to speak to men in their own languages.

Acts 2 could not have been the gift of tongues. Here's why. Suppose you went out to do some evangelism. Would you speak in tongues? A langauage no one understands? The CONTEXT of Acts 2 is witnessing/evangelism. Jesus said the outpouring - 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' - was to confer power to witness/preach. When the Spirit inspires our speaking/preaching, this was historically called the gift of prophecy. The MARK of the baptism of the Spirit (the power to evangelize), is the gift of prophecy. What Christians have been doing, historically, is NOT prophesying and therefore it is NOT evangelism. A minimum number of people do get saved because God is gracious, but not nearly as many as God wants.

Luke wrote in the ancient tradition of the biblical historians. That tradition - from start to finish - was SATURATED with a prophethood tradition, not a tongues-tradition. Tongues was never mentioned. There's no way in heaven, then, that Luke was going to make a violent break with that literary tradition - introduce some radical new gift no one's ever heard of, with no explanation? Hardly. When Paul introduced it, he took the time to explain it.

As early as 200 A.D. the church father Tertullian insisted that the "tongues" of Acts 10 was actually the gift of prophecy.

 

[Nanopants]

Obviously the gift of tongues is something that has suffered abuse, so I tend to just leave it alone. If you've got it, then you should know it and you should understand it so you should be able to explain it.

 

[RDKirk]

I pretty much agree with this. However, I'm not sure how they verified "tongues" as prophesy when uttered by the Samaritans evangelized by Deacon Philip or by Cornelius. The prophesy of King Saul comes to mind--clearly it was of a nature that proved itself valid by some inherent characteristic.

There must be some characteristic of true Holy Spirit prophesy that we can on longer clearly recognized that was apparent with Saul, the Samaritans, and Cornelius.

I have a suspicion, too, that one of the primary purposes the Holy Spirit put to tongues was, first, to prove that tongues were the proof of His activity...and having done that, using it to prove that He was including Gentiles in the promise of salvation.

It is clear to me that without such absolutely irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit was 'way ahead of them, Peter might yet have refused to baptize Cornelius.

I suspect much of what you said is true, unfortunately. I believe in the gift of speaking in tongues as a language the partakers do not know (1Cor 14) but I doubt many modern-day Pentecostals actually got the true gift (I'd be surprised if more than 5% have the true gift). In one church they laid hands on me praying for me to receive the gift but kept urging me, as they prayed, "Go ahead and start speaking in tongues by faith." They wore me down with this prodding until I finally assented, but the moment I begin opening my mouth to try to form some syllables they said, "Praise the Lord! That's the gift! You got it!" If that wasn't the most ridiculous moment of my life, I don't know what was.

And yes, I agree that Act 2 is NOT the the gift of tongues described in 1Cor 14. My own view is that Acts is the gift of prophecy, not tongues. The word "tongues" means "languages" (as the Book of Revelation refers to "every nation and every tongue") - the CONTEXT determines, therefore, whether it means the "gift of tongues" or simply "languages". In Acts 2 it wasn't "the gift of tongues" because the audience DID understand it (there was no need for the gift of interpretation described in 1Cor 14. In 1Cor 14 Paul distinguishes two modes;:
(1) A revelation given in a language no one understands. He calls this the gift of tongues.
(2) A revelation given in a language the audience DOES understand. He calls this the gift of prophecy.

Act 2, therefore, was the gift of prophecy. Peter told us so explicitly, he said it was the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit and they SHALL prophesy" (Acts 2:17). Joel said the promise would come with signs and wonders - it was a SIGN and a WONDER that Peter was able to speak to men in their own languages.

Acts 2 could not have been the gift of tongues. Here's why. Suppose you went out to do some evangelism. Would you speak in tongues? A langauage no one understands? The CONTEXT of Acts 2 is witnessing/evangelism. Jesus said the outpouring - 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' - was to confer power to witness/preach. When the Spirit inspires our speaking/preaching, this was historically called the gift of prophecy. The MARK of the baptism of the Spirit (the power to evangelize), is the gift of prophecy. What Christians have been doing, historically, is NOT prophesying and therefore it is NOT evangelism. A minimum number of people do get saved because God is gracious, but not nearly as many as God wants.

Luke wrote in the ancient tradition of the biblical historians. That tradition - from start to finish - was SATURATED with a prophethood tradition, not a tongues-tradition. Tongues was never mentioned. There's no way in heaven, then, that Luke was going to make a violent break with that literary tradition - introduce some radical new gift no one's ever heard of, with no explanation? Hardly. When Paul introduced it, he took the time to explain it.

As early as 200 A.D. the church father Tertullian insisted that the "tongues" of Acts 10 was actually the gift of prophecy.

 

[JAL]

I pretty much agree with this. However, I'm not sure how they verified "tongues" as prophesy when uttered by the Samaritans evangelized by Deacon Philip or by Cornelius. The prophesy of King Saul comes to mind--clearly it was of a nature that proved itself valid by some inherent characteristic.
.
There must be some characteristic of true Holy Spirit prophesy that we can on longer clearly recognized that was apparent with Saul, the Samaritans, and Cornelius.

I have a suspicion, too, that one of the primary purposes the Holy Spirit put to tongues was, first, to prove that tongues were the proof of His activity...and having done that, using it to prove that He was including Gentiles in the promise of salvation.

It is clear to me that without such absolutely irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit was 'way ahead of them, Peter might yet have refused to baptize Cornelius.

Excellent reasoning - it's amazing to me that in 2000 years few theologians and pastors have taken it upon themselves to ask the potentially ground-breaking question that you just raised - in what sense is prophetic utterance self-authenticating?

Before I discuss this, let me admit that there was at least a bit of empircal authentication occurring in Acs. Peter said (see Acts 11) that Cornelius' household received the same gift given at Pentecost (the gift of prophecy). Specifically Pentecost involved speaking in a language known to the audience although not to the listener. For instance picture a bunch of Gentiles in Cornelius' houehold who don't know Hebrew. Since Peter (arguably) suddenly heard them speaking in Hebrew, he naturally concluded that they received the same gift given at Pentecost.

Nonetheless your question is still central to the biblical millenia of prophetic tradition. How is it that the revelations were, generally speaking, self-authenticating both to the prophet and to the audience? In fact the true prophet was infallible in his revelations - he couldn't accidentally mess up. We know he was infallible because God commanded Israel to put him to death if his statements proved false.

It seems to me there is only one possible way that a revelation can be infallibly self-authenticating - and it will soon be clear why genuine evangelism MUST be the gift of prophecy. (By the way, do you recall who evangelized Nineveh? The prophet Jonah!).

God must do two things. (1) He must inspire within the prophet a feeling of abolute certainty that he heard God's voice loud and clear. (2) He must prevent the devil (or even the human mind) from creating a counterfeit version of this abolute certainty.

I'm talking about ABSOLUTE certainty which is something more than what most people mean by that phrase. If you receive a revelation (i.e. what seems to be a revelation), but can still think to yourself, "It wouldn't hurt to check it out against Scripture, or maybe speak with some Christian counselors," that is NOT absolute certainty. The prophet, then, had a simple obligation. To avoid being stoned to death, he simply had to be HONEST (would to God that the self-proclaimed 'prophets' of today might be so honest). If there was any doubt in his mind about a revelation, he simply needed to be honest enough to tell the people, "Look, a thought did come to mind but I can't be sure that was God speaking." And he had good incentive to be honest - he didn't want them to stone him to death!

In several places absolute certainty is implied. An excellent example is Abraham because Scripture celebrates his attempt to kill his son as one of the most righteous acts in human history (see Hebrews 11). Killing your son? Righteous? Superbly so? Suppose I hear a voice telling me to kill my son but lack absolute certainty. I conclude, "I really don't know if that was God speaking but I'm going to murder my son regardless!" Is that a supremely righteous attitude? Nope, it's supremely evil. If you're going to kill your own child, you'd better be darn certain - absolutely certain - it's the right thing to do. (By the way the Hebrew term for 'prophet' was applied to Abraham before anyone else).

Ok, I've just described how God authenticated the revelation in the mind of the prophet. But what about his audience? How would they know the prophet spoke in truth? To make it all work, God had to - when the prophet spoke - extend the absolute certainty to the hearts of the audience. We say that the Holy Spirit convicts (convinces) the audience.

And NOW we see why evangelism MUST be the gift of prophecy. Suppose I go stand out on a street corner today. Will I likely be effective evangelizing? Few people will take me seriously because they are UNCERTAIN that my message is true. They aren't convicted. The ONE thing I need in order to be an effective evangelist is the gift of prophecy - a gift wherein God puts revelations in my mind and, as I speak them, persuades the audience to the extent of absolute certainty.

I could provide at least two more arguments demonstrating that evangelism is prophecy but I'm going to cut this short...

 

[ViaCrucis]

As far as I can tell, Scripture tells us exactly what it is. It can be found in Acts ch. 2 and Acts ch. 10, when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost and later on in a secondary sense on the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.

It's not conversion, it's not regeneration, it's not a spiritual experience. It was the inaugural pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh in fulfillment of what St. John the Baptist said, that One would come after him that would baptize with "the Holy Spirit and with fire", and Jesus again specifically says would happen a few days after His ascension (and it did, on Pentecost).

Baptism with the Holy Spirit isn't an individual experience, it was an historic event that happened two thousand years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Knee V]

Just as baptism into Christ is the means by which we are united to Christ, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is the means by which we are united to the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church has always administered both to the new convert to Christ, baptizing them in water into Christ, and then sealing them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. By being united both to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, we are able to share in their life, and through their reciprocal love with the Father, we are able to be drawn into His life as well.

 

[Nanopants]

Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. -Acts 8:17

This was after Pentecost. Anointing had been going on for a few thousand years prior to Christ as well.

 

[Knee V]

Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. -Acts 8:17

This was after Pentecost. Anointing had been going on for a few thousand years prior to Christ as well.

Indeed. I think what ViaCrucis was getting at was that Jesus' words, "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire" was a reference to the one-time event of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on those in the upper room as cloven tongues of fire.

 

[Nanopants]

Yeah I suppose we could look at it as a historical event, but then wouldn't we call that Pentecost? Anyways, the idea that we can no longer be baptized by the Spirit just irks me.

 

[Knee V]

Yeah I suppose we could look at it as a historical event, but then wouldn't we call that Pentecost? Anyways, the idea that we can no longer be baptized by the Spirit just irks me.

I think how we answer that depends on the context of the question. The Orthodox would certainly agree that we are baptized by the Holy Spirit as a separate act from being baptized into Christ through immersion in water. We call that "chrismation".

 

[jesusfreak34988]

one of the largest farces in all Christendom is calling the gift of tongues,
that which we see today in Pentecostal and charismatic circles.

WOW!, it's actually the opposite

ANYONE can mumble and call it what ever they want...
some even believe it's Godly, or God speaking for you, etc.....
some just go along with it....keeping up with the Jones'.

I would suggest that you dismiss it completely and move on.
I checked it out, and it did not take long to realize it was all a sham.

speaking in mumbled-jumbled ecstatic syllables, which no one can understand, is not a gift.

and anyone claiming to understand this goobily gock,
is outright lying or being deceived by dark forces





First off, Speaking in tongues is a prayer language between Man and God.

1. Corinthians 12:10- To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kings of tongues; To another the interpretation of tongues.
1. Corinthians 14:2- For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not untio men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; home beit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied" fr greater is he that prophesieth that he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret that the church may receive edifying.

15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding, also; i will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also.

18. I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than ye all:
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them not believe not, but for them which believe.

27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

39. (and most important) Wherefore, brethern covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.


there is no speaking gobbly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] as you called it, we are commanded to speak in tongues, and things of that nature, certain things are for us to use as a witness within the Christian world and others are for those not yet saved. If you don't understand something please don't count it as weird, strange or wrong. See what God has to say about it first. ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 2:1-4 tells of the coming of God's gift of himself in the Holy Spirit. It is a second incarnation; only this time instead of one man - the second Adam - being incarnate it is the incarnation of a people, a community which is the body of Christ. This second incarnation depends on the first completely; thus where Christ is there is his Spirit and Christ is present in all who have been baptised into union with him as saint Paul explains in Romans 6:3-6. And there is the anointing which Christ's body received as explained by saint John in 1John 2:26-27. Which is also communal rather than private and individual, as saint John's persistent use of plural 'you' evidences.

It seems to me that these things have their root in history and their branches in our time; we do not repeat Pentecost either communally or individually nor do we receive the anointing again communally or individually but we possess both as the body of Christ in succession from those who first received these blessings. And it is this succession which brings us to the laying on of hands as the means of transmitting this gift from one to another through all the centuries from the beginning on Pentecost day to our own day.

When people seek after spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues, it cannot be as a sign of their inclusion in the gift of the Holy Spirit nor in his anointing of the body of Christ because these things already exist in the church and persist in her. Thus the idea of a baptism in the Holy Spirit as a private individual experience accompanied by a sign of speaking in tongues is based on a misunderstanding of the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the church and the means by which new members of the body are brought into full communion with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

There is, in our culture today, a strong leaning towards private and individual achievement and gifts; as if God in past ages had neglected to teach the church how Christ was to be present in them as a community. It is this private gifting and individual spirituality that leads to so much emphasis on proofs of one's conversion and proofs of one's baptism in the Spirit. I wish that these cultural incursions into the faith of the church were not present but they are.

Saint Paul warned his readers not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewal of your* mind, that you* may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Let us heed his warning.

* you in the plural.

 

[JAL]

As far as I can tell, Scripture tells us exactly what it is. It can be found in Acts ch. 2 and Acts ch. 10, when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost and later on in a secondary sense on the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.

It's not conversion, it's not regeneration, it's not a spiritual experience. It was the inaugural pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh in fulfillment of what St. John the Baptist said, that One would come after him that would baptize with "the Holy Spirit and with fire", and Jesus again specifically says would happen a few days after His ascension (and it did, on Pentecost).

I wouldn't call it inaugural, in my view the OT saints were getting the same outpourings. But I agree with the rest of those comments.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit isn't an individual experience, it was an historic event that happened two thousand years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

This conclusion doesn't follow well from your preceding statements. You just admitted that, after the Spirit descended upon some individuals on Pentecost, He descended AGAIN upon Cornelius household. Peter himself described it as a repetition of Pentecost. Here again the Spirit fell upon a group of individuals within a geographic region. Pentecost was not therefore a historic once-and-for-all, it is to be repeated in the lives of individuals. On this point Pentecostals are correct.

One of my beefs with Pentecostals is the devastating assumption that only one outpouring is available per person. Once they speak in tongues, they don't feel the need to seek more outpourings.

This reflects a failure on the part of the church as a whole to understand efficacious grace. Consider the unbeliever. Does he have the Spirit? Yes, if we maintain that God is EVERYWHERE. But the Spirit within him is merely an inactive potential, activated only by repentance, obedience and faith.

So when God gives the Spirit to the Christian, does He pour out another inactive potential? What the unbeliever already has? Of course not! Instead, God sends Him as efficacious grace, in two different capacities.
(1) Sanctification - 60 times the NT refers to believers as holy, using the same Greek word used 90 times in "Holy Spirit". This implies that regeneration (efficaciously) makes PART of the heart holy (the rest of the heart is the sinful nature), we need to keep seeking outpourings to be FILLED with the Spirit/holiness.

(2) Charismatic empowerment. The divine Word (an outpouring of the Spirit) fell upon the prophet each time he needed to prophesy or perform a miracle (for instance each time Samson needed to be strong - this is documented). Again, the reason for this is efficacious grace - the Spirit is not sent as an inactive potential but as an ACTIVATION of God's grace. Once the miracle is done, therefore, the charismatic outpouring departs (any sanctifying outpourings remain). This departure (return to God) is spoken of in Isaiah, "The Word that goes out from my mouth will not return void but fulfills the purpose for which I sent it." An inactive potential would likely return void, whereas an efficacious outpouring performs the miracle and then returns to God.

To conclude, Pentecostals are sadly mistaken to speak of "the baptism of the Spirit" in a singular sense, as though it only happens once per individual. The divine Word fell upon the prophet Jeremiah at least 17 recorded times, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[RDKirk]

Just as baptism into Christ is the means by which we are united to Christ, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is the means by which we are united to the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church has always administered both to the new convert to Christ, baptizing them in water into Christ, and then sealing them with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What's your method of doing that?

 

[RDKirk]

Acts 2:1-4 tells of the coming of God's gift of himself in the Holy Spirit. It is a second incarnation; only this time instead of one man - the second Adam - being incarnate it is the incarnation of a people, a community which is the body of Christ. This second incarnation depends on the first completely; thus where Christ is there is his Spirit and Christ is present in all who have been baptised into union with him as saint Paul explains in Romans 6:3-6. And there is the anointing which Christ's body received as explained by saint John in 1John 2:26-27. Which is also communal rather than private and individual, as saint John's persistent use of plural 'you' evidences.

It seems to me that these things have their root in history and their branches in our time; we do not repeat Pentecost either communally or individually nor do we receive the anointing again communally or individually but we possess both as the body of Christ in succession from those who first received these blessings. And it is this succession which brings us to the laying on of hands as the means of transmitting this gift from one to another through all the centuries from the beginning on Pentecost day to our own day.

When people seek after spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues, it cannot be as a sign of their inclusion in the gift of the Holy Spirit nor in his anointing of the body of Christ because these things already exist in the church and persist in her. Thus the idea of a baptism in the Holy Spirit as a private individual experience accompanied by a sign of speaking in tongues is based on a misunderstanding of the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the church and the means by which new members of the body are brought into full communion with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

There is, in our culture today, a strong leaning towards private and individual achievement and gifts; as if God in past ages had neglected to teach the church how Christ was to be present in them as a community. It is this private gifting and individual spirituality that leads to so much emphasis on proofs of one's conversion and proofs of one's baptism in the Spirit. I wish that these cultural incursions into the faith of the church were not present but they are.

Saint Paul warned his readers not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewal of your* mind, that you* may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Let us heed his warning.

* you in the plural.

Yeah, boy.

Especially that last.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I wouldn't call it inaugural, in my view the OT saints were getting the same outpourings. But I agree with the rest of those comments.

This conclusion doesn't follow well from your preceding statements. You just admitted that, after the Spirit descended upon some individuals on Pentecost, He descended AGAIN upon Cornelius household. Peter himself described it as a repetition of Pentecost. Here again the Spirit fell upon a group of individuals within a geographic region. Pentecost was not therefore a historic once-and-for-all, it is to be repeated in the lives of individuals. On this point Pentecostals are correct.

One of my beefs with Pentecostals is the devastating assumption that only one outpouring is available per person. Once they speak in tongues, they don't feel the need to seek more outpourings.

This reflects a failure on the part of the church as a whole to understand efficacious grace. Consider the unbeliever. Does he have the Spirit? Yes, if we maintain that God is EVERYWHERE. But the Spirit within him is merely an inactive potential, activated only by repentance, obedience and faith.

So when God gives the Spirit to the Christian, does He pour out another inactive potential? What the unbeliever already has? Of course not! Instead, God sends Him as efficacious grace, in two different capacities.
(1) Sanctification - 60 times the NT refers to believers as holy, using the same Greek word used 90 times in "Holy Spirit". This implies that regeneration (efficaciously) makes PART of the heart holy (the rest of the heart is the sinful nature), we need to keep seeking outpourings to be FILLED with the Spirit/holiness.

(2) Charismatic empowerment. The divine Word (an outpouring of the Spirit) fell upon the prophet each time he needed to prophesy or perform a miracle (for instance each time Samson needed to be strong - this is documented). Again, the reason for this is efficacious grace - the Spirit is not sent as an inactive potential but as an ACTIVATION of God's grace. Once the miracle is done, therefore, the charismatic outpouring departs (any sanctifying outpourings remain). This departure (return to God) is spoken of in Isaiah, "The Word that goes out from my mouth will not return void but fulfills the purpose for which I sent it." An inactive potential would likely return void, whereas an efficacious outpouring performs the miracle and then returns to God.

To conclude, Pentecostals are sadly mistaken to speak of "the baptism of the Spirit" in a singular sense, as though it only happens once per individual. The divine Word fell upon the prophet Jeremiah at least 17 recorded times, if my memory serves me correctly.

The Mini-Pentecost with the Gentiles in Cornelius' household was a sign, indeed, consider how St. Peter takes the event, he is taken aback by what happens. And when he retells the story to the other leaders of the Church he compares it with what happened with them on Pentecost.

Look at how the Acts is outlined, it is outlined as the Lord gives to His apostles in the first chapters of the text, "You will be My witnesses, beginning in Jerusalem..." The Acts follows this, the Spirit is poured out on Pentecost, upon those in the upper room in Jerusalem, then they beginning there go out and preach throughout Judea and Samaria. Then with Cornelius, it becomes clear that God intends the Gospel for all people, for all nations, for all tribes and tongues of men on earth--and so the Word goes forth to the Gentiles as well.

This mini-Pentecost with Cornelius doesn't change the historical significance and reality of these events. Scripture never shows such miraculous outpourings of the Spirit to be repeatable, individual experiences. It is never an individual experience, they are always corporate events.

The Spirit has already, once and for all, been poured out for all; upon the whole Church. Our reception of the Spirit comes by our Baptism into Christ, by which our sins are forgiven and we receive the gift of the Spirit. Just as the Apostle said on Pentecost in his sermon, "Repent and be baptized every one of your in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tellastory]

- first what is the baptism of the holy spirit?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735257/

Is it to be born again in the spirit that happens once?

Yes.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735253/

Is it something else that can happen many times to indicate a life that is filled with the holy spirit?

No.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735256/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735258/

If it can happen many times in the life of a person then does it mean that it comes and go or does it mean that the holy spirit dwells in the person to be manifested later?

For example I was reading that David had what seems the holy spirit more than once in his life, was that the baptism of the holy spirit everytime?

- what is the purpose of the baptism of the holy spirit?

Jesus had given the Holy Spirit in Matthew 10th chapter and agin in John 20th chapter, but they were only temporary infilling as those in the OT saints were.

The promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Spirit is given only when Jesus has saved the believer when they come to & believe in Jesus Christ.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Jesus has to lead us as being the way to the Father in preparing a place for us in His House to live with God forever, including OT saints.

OT saints were held captive in Paradise or "Abraham's bosom" which was located across from the chasm in hell. After His resurrection, those OT saints were raised.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

So they were not in Heaven yet because Jesus had to be the way back for us.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

So that was when the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost could be given when Jesus had sat down at the right hand of God the Father.

John 14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also....16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

if it is a gift can it happen anytime to anyone and today too?

No. When it happens again in a spectacular way, then those are seducing spirits stealing the spotlight away from the Son in misleading believers into seeking after receiving them again for a sign in the flesh, including tongues that comes with no interpretation.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735029/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735259/

- is the baptism of the holy spirit an inside feeling? or does it always include signs that others can see and what are those signs?

For example some say that with the baptism of the holy spirit there is always speaking in tongues and it is a necessity. is that right?
​

- can speaking in tongues happen without the baptism of the holy spirit? and can speaking in tongues happen many times?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735260/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735254/

Believers that are led astray rarely see how they are preaching that "extra" more than preaching Jesus Christ & Him crucified as if that is the better spotlight than the Good News in Christ Jesus. They are preaching that "extra" to believers and failing to see that as giving another hope of their calling and another invitation to the Spirit which Jesus, the Son of God, had never given an invitation nor any of His disciples for coming to, because it is by the Son, we have received the promise of the Spirit whenever any believer come to & believe in Jesus Christ.

That is why His disciples were called christians in Antioch, because they were led by the indwelling Holy Spirit to keep that spotlight on the Son, the Good News to man, but these believers today are called Pentecostal or Charismatics, and their spotlight is on the "Holy Spirit" & "signs" as they give another invitation and another calling for those that are already saved believers to seek after, and thus moving away from their rest in Jesus Christ when they first came to & believed in Him.

Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world......9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

So don't let them make the simplicity of the gospel more complicated. Keep your eyes on the Bridegroom as He will be coming soon for the bride.

2 Corinthians 11:1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Corinthians 13: 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.