How do I know if I am baptised in the Holy Spirit and what is it ?

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks once again Kylissa. What do you view the fire as, as in " baptise you with Holy Spirit and with fire"

To be honest, I have thought on that a little, but I never had a real answer. I offered the verse (with the qualifications) that it was simply a place that mentioned a Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit. It is repeated in other Gospels as well, I think.

That verse is the one that makes me feel kind of bad for not wanting to call it the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, since the Bible apparently does. It's just that so much misunderstanding has grown up, and so much controversy, and I've seen some pretty vicious disagreements, and it ought not be that way.

Many more Christians can agree with being filled with the Holy Spirit, however they view that happening.

I see GratiaCorpusChristi gave an answer on that verse. I would put his sources above my own.

I would be curious about your experiences regarding the Pentecostal church, if you happen to care to elaborate.

I've attended a few churches as my home church that I suppose would fit within the broad area of Pentecostalism (two non-denoms, one of which had Messianic leanings, and a FourSquare). But in searching for a new church since moving away from the FourSquare years ago, I have visited many various Pentecostal churches (and some non-Pentecostal as well) and while I saw a couple I would be satisfied to stay in, I have seen a spectrum of things that concern me. Some of them concern me very, very much, and are starting to seem the norm in many churches.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The textual history of Luke 3:16 and its Synoptic parallels is fairly muddied, but I'd have to go with James Dunn (the leading scholar on Jesus and the Spirit) and say that the verse is better read "He will deluge you in sanctifying wind and fire." This is tribulation language, not baptism language.

Ah, I have to add this to my list. I have too many pressing things I'm looking into at the moment, but that is really interesting.

I want to think about it, but I have never heard it put that way before, and I'm drawing a blank. Thanks for posting the information.

 

[sidelined]

Hi, You asked for my views on my particular pentacostal church. It is a wonderful body of loving christians who care for each other and that is why I am still there. But I dont think they test all they have been taught. I will give you an example. They will talk about "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", but that phrase is not biblical. "Baptism in,or Baptism with " is biblical. I think that the AOG who used to be so critical of the "Traditions of man" have fallen into they trap of following their own traditions, a lot of which come from the 1980`s. I am sorry but after studying the subject of speaking in tongues I have decided their statement of beliefs regarding this as being so shallow as to not have any worth. i suppose i am waking up to the realisation that if it is not a biblical term then it should not be turned into one. Blessings to you.

 

[rockytopva]

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. - Ecclesiastes 7:29

Sidelined... I find that if the Holy Spirit cannot operate within a church that he will leave them to their own inventions. If that is the case a church can turn to prayer and repentance. If a good evangelist comes by there is hope again of rekindling the fire and of revival.

It is a matter of having God working with us. For without him we can do nothing.

I particularly worry over the fact that there are few good evangelist these days that can motivate a church out of the slump.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi, You asked for my views on my particular pentacostal church. It is a wonderful body of loving christians who care for each other and that is why I am still there. But I dont think they test all they have been taught. I will give you an example. They will talk about "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", but that phrase is not biblical. "Baptism in,or Baptism with " is biblical. I think that the AOG who used to be so critical of the "Traditions of man" have fallen into they trap of following their own traditions, a lot of which come from the 1980`s. I am sorry but after studying the subject of speaking in tongues I have decided their statement of beliefs regarding this as being so shallow as to not have any worth. i suppose i am waking up to the realisation that if it is not a biblical term then it should not be turned into one. Blessings to you.

Thanks for sharing.

I went quite a bit to an AoG church that had services on "off" night so that I could attend worship without leaving my regular church. I would agree that the statement is inaccurate - not sure if our reasons are the same or not. I think it's very perceptive and honest of you to realize that many churches accuse others of following traditions without realizing that they do as well.

If I'm not being too intrusive, do you plan to seek a different church?

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[sidelined]

Hi, do I plan to leave the church. No, although it has crossed my mind. My feeling is that I do as much as I can to spotlight the inaccuracies in the hope that they will reconsider their views on certain issues. If it makes me unpopular then so be it. If I get chucked out then so be it.
Heres an example of the indefensible.

If muslims, hindus, witches mormons and pagans etc speak in tongues, then how is speaking in tongues the essential biblical evidence of being "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" To me it has no validaty whatsoever.

 

[rockytopva]

Sidelined. It would be great if the power of God existed within a mindset or a doctrine. The power of God exists within the heart. Therefore we can know all mysteries and still not have charity, or the power of God. As the heart of man is fickle... It is not something that we can put the greatest of trust in.

As far as speaking in tongues I think it is a poor indicator of spirituality. If a man preaches with the unction of the Holy Spirit you will know it for the Holy Spirit will be speaking to the heart as well as the mind.

 

[bling]

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred on Pentecost in Acts 2 , this seems to fit what John the Baptist prophesied. In Acts 4 you have a similar earth shacking experience and an outward sign was given again.

Then we go all the way to Acts 10: 45 …the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.

But when Peter recounts what happened in Acts 10 with Cornelius and his household, Peter has to go all the way back to what John the Baptist prophesied : Acts 11: 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” Peter also goes back to “when we believed” and not when anyone believes they receive this miraculous power.

I would suggest there are different portions of Holy Spirit with the indwelling portion being given to all believers. The indwelling portion is the much more important portion and Jesus said that he had to leave before this portion would be available John 14: 15-31.

Now I am not saying miracles cannot happen or a person cannot be filled with the Spirit, but the work of the outward miraculous portions of the Spirit do not seem needed in this age and part of the world.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If muslims, hindus, witches mormons and pagans etc speak in tongues, then how is speaking in tongues the essential biblical evidence of being "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" To me it has no validaty whatsoever.

We were just discussing this (and much more) on a very long-running thread.

I do believe in a private prayer language for believers. But I don't agree with speaking in tongues as evidence of anything.

I would rather consider the passion one has for one's faith, the fruit displayed in one's life, and the level of sanctification to be better indicators that it is actually the Holy Spirit at work in one's life.

I'm not sure what might be going on in the church, but if any church is demanding people to "perform" by speaking in tongues, that introduces problems - not to mention being completely unscriptural. And if people who speak in tongues think of themselves more highly than they ought, thinking themselves more spiritual, that is evidence of problems as well.

May the Lord be with you and guide you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:13

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit," - Ephesians 1:13

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Standing Up]

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:13

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit," - Ephesians 1:13

-CryptoLutheran

Since Paul wasn't sent to water baptize, do you really think he means water baptism in your quote?

Re water baptism of repentance for Jews and then Spirit fell. For Gentiles, it was Spirit fall, and then water baptism. Do you think there's a reason for the different sequencing, like God somehow got ahead of Himself in eagerness for Gentiles or what?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Since Paul wasn't sent to water baptize, do you really think he means water baptism in your quote?

Yes.

Paul was glad that he wasn't sent to baptize because he saw the sorts of nonsense happening in Corinth. That doesn't undermine the fact that:

A) He did baptize.

B) He's clear about what Baptism actually is and actually does.

"I wasn't sent to baptize" is not an excuse to ignore what Scripture plainly says about Baptism, and that Baptism means Baptism.

You're going to have to try a lot harder if you want to inject something else besides the plain meaning of Baptism when the text says Baptism.

Baptism involves getting wet. Anytime it's meant in some other capacity there is a qualitative statement in the text to let us know that "Baptism" is being used in a figurative, rather than literal, way.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sunlover1]

Quick question.I have been a chrisatian for 26 years.
How do I know if I am baptised in the Holy Spirit and what is it ?

Apreciate all responses but ask you to be honest and thoughtful in your answers, (as I know you will be)

Greetings.
I wondered that same thing and I decided that i must indeed,
have been baptixed in the Holy Spirit.

Then several years later, I actually DID get it.
And there was no doubt in my mind. It was a
very life changing event.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes.

Paul was glad that he wasn't sent to baptize because he saw the sorts of nonsense happening in Corinth. That doesn't undermine the fact that:

A) He did baptize.

B) He's clear about what Baptism actually is and actually does.

"I wasn't sent to baptize" is not an excuse to ignore what Scripture plainly says about Baptism, and that Baptism means Baptism.

You're going to have to try a lot harder if you want to inject something else besides the plain meaning of Baptism when the text says Baptism.

Baptism involves getting wet. Anytime it's meant in some other capacity there is a qualitative statement in the text to let us know that "Baptism" is being used in a figurative, rather than literal, way.

-CryptoLutheran

So you don't distinguish between

water baptism of repentance (John)
Spirit baptism (Christ)

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you don't distinguish between

water baptism of repentance (John)
Spirit baptism (Christ)

I make a distinction between John's Baptism of repentance and Christian Baptism.

I also understand that--as I already said--that when there is a qualitative statement made in conjunction with Baptism that it means Baptism in a more loose sense, e.g. "Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire", a reference to the event that took place on Pentecost, as Acts 1 clearly states.

But unless there is some sort of actual indicator that we're using "baptism" in a more figurative use of the word such as the above example, there's simply no reason to believe that Baptism doesn't actually mean Baptism. There's simply no reason to believe that when someone heard "baptism" the image they formed in their head involved getting wet.

If you have evidence to suggest that the normative use of the word "baptism" in Koine meant something other than "wash", "bathe", "dip", etc then feel free to present it.

But I simply have no reason to believe that βάπτισμα in its normal, regular use means anything other than "a washing", "a dipping", "a bath". As such I don't find it particularly helpful to try and interject and eisegete modern sacramentarian theology back anachronistically into the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[granpa]

Peter preached the gospel to the household of Cornelius the Centurion, a Gentile. While he preached, the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles, and they began to speak in (multiple) tongues (at once).

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

 

[New Legacy]

Quick question.I have been a chrisatian for 26 years.
How do I know if I am baptised in the Holy Spirit and what is it ?

Apreciate all responses but ask you to be honest and thoughtful in your answers, (as I know you will be)

It often refers to a recently invented gnostic theology. In scripture, there was the baptism of John, which was of water. There was a second baptism, which was of water an the Holy Spirit.

Recent revisionists have said that there is a Christian water baptism which is a 'sign' of faith and a baptism of the holy spirit which was purely spiritual. In that theology, at a particular point the Holy Spirit cleanses and redeems the person.

Traditionally, Christians believed that through water the Holy Spirit baptizes a person. If you have been baptized in the names of the Trinity, then you can be assured of your baptism by the Holy Spirit.

If you believe this modern stuff about a non-water baptism of the Holy Spirit, then you can never know if you are saved. Ultimately, people who believe they were baptized by the Holy Spirit leave the faith - so the response is that they were never saved. But they can never say how a person knows they are saved.

 

[sunlover1]

It often refers to a recently invented gnostic theology. In scripture, there was the baptism of John, which was of water. There was a second baptism, which was of water an the Holy Spirit.

Recent revisionists have said that there is a Christian water baptism which is a 'sign' of faith and a baptism of the holy spirit which was purely spiritual. In that theology, at a particular point the Holy Spirit cleanses and redeems the person.

Traditionally, Christians believed that through water the Holy Spirit baptizes a person. If you have been baptized in the names of the Trinity, then you can be assured of your baptism by the Holy Spirit.

If you believe this modern stuff about a non-water baptism of the Holy Spirit, then you can never know if you are saved. Ultimately, people who believe they were baptized by the Holy Spirit leave the faith - so the response is that they were never saved. But they can never say how a person knows they are saved.

Scripture would help.
Otherwise we just have your opinion.

 

[SuperLuey]

I'm willing to bet that this topic, and the way you worded the question, will net you some different, and likely very vigorous, responses.

I don't like to use the term "Baptized in the Holy Spirit". Pentecostals tend to have certain areas of agreement in this, but they can vary as to what happens. And often those from other parts of Christianity misunderstand what Pentecostals mean, perhaps because of the disagreements.

I prefer to discuss it in terms of "filling of the Holy Spirit". ALL believers "receive the Holy Spirit" and so all believers "have the Holy Spirit." All.

However, I believe that one can also be filled with the Holy Spirit. I believe the purpose of this is to carry out God's plans. There are some who equate it with "feelings" but that is not the actual purpose. Many do report physical sensations, most often as if something warm were poured over their heads, sometimes in waves. Some report a tingling sensation. But ... I don't believe the physical sensations are the defining factor. Some would also say that a person will automatically speak in tongues if this occurs. I do not agree with that either.

How can you know? That's a more difficult question. If you have had an experience that is like others describe, or you have spoken in tongues, that would very likely be taken as "evidence". However, I also believe that MANY believers have received an infilling of the Holy Spirit without any such sensations or ever speaking in tongues.

One can expect a renewed commitment to the Gospel, a dedication to study, a special enthusiasm to the "good works" prepared for us, or any number of other results. I would expect an increase in sanctification (but not legalism). If it is something that changes you, makes you ready and dedicated to do the things God has for you, then I would take that as almost certain evidence of having been filled with the Holy Spirit.

I believe that after the initial filling (which is what Pentecostals usually call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit) - I believe that one can also be filled again on later occasions, although it is very rarely that I hear anyone speak of this. The later fillings seem to not be a dramatic event in any case, but I believe one can repeatedly be being filled. As a matter of fact, it seems Paul instructs us to be.

I second this. Its Biblical

 

[New Legacy]

Scripture would help.
Otherwise we just have your opinion.

When I post on CF, I do so presuming the people I am talking about are familiar enough with the bible to know the various themes and stories I am referring to. One ought to know the various references to baptism in the NT.

I am not a sleazy preacher or evangelist that preys upon a person's lack of understanding by quoting a scripture and twisting it in a way that clearly contradicts other parts of the scripture. Convincing them that my view is 'scriptural'.

I do not play the fundamentalists game of quote scripture, twist it, and then when another person does the same, tell them they have no relationship with God. It is 'my opinion' regardless of whether or not I quote a verse in BOLD COLORFUL LETTERS with underlying and italics.

This is not my first rodeo.

If you are sincerely interested, I am happy too provide scriptures to you. However, "Scripture would help. Otherwise we just have your opinion." is a classic line of rhetoric, so I am assuming that is your aim.