Being filled with the Holy Spirit vs tongues

[Saint Steven]

But Peter isn't describing the baptism with the Holy spirit in Acts 2:39, he is speaking of the promise he had just spoken, "repent and be baptized, all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", this promise, attached to "repent and be baptized" is that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the Holy Spirit.

John foretells that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Jesus, in Acts 1, echoes these same words, speaking of their needing to wait in Jerualem until this happens. It happened on Pentecost.
Then Peter mentions it again in reference to the Pentecost-like pouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles when he came and preached to them, as recorded in Acts 10-11.

And so the words of St. John the Baptist were fulfilled on Pentecost. At no point is the laying on of hands associated, called, or identified with the "baptism with the Holy Spirit. Only two things are: Pentecost and Cornelius' household. Two very unique, special, and pivotal moments at the beginning of the Christian movement.

-CryptoLutheran

I disagree. Verse 33 tells us that the promise is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Which did not stop, but rather began, at Pentecost.

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

 

[New Birth]

To speak with "new tongues" doesn't mean the tongues were non-human. It means to speak in languages which were new to the speaker.

Mounce Greek Lexicon
καινός
Strong's number:
2537

Gloss:
new, latest, anew; in some contexts new is superior to old (Mt 9:17; Heb 8)

Definition:
new, recently made, Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; new in species, character, or mode, Mt. 26:28, 29; Mk. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22:20; Jn. 13:34; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:24; 1 Jn. 2:7; Rev. 3:12; novel, strange, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; new to the possessor, Mk. 16:17; unheard of, unusual, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; met. renovated, better, of higher excellence, 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 5:9​

Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues were a non-human language. In fact, up until the start of the twentieth century the idea of tongues being a non-human language was unheard of. The only description of tongues is in Acts 2, which clearly says it is miraculously speaking a foreign language you have never learned.

Do you speak in tongues as scripture describes it? I suspect you don't. I suspect what you have discovered is the natural phenomenon of the flesh known to linguists as 'free vocalisation' or glossolalia, where the speech organs go into 'auto-pilot' and produce strings of random syllables. Professional linguists have been studying glossolalia for years. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues. Here are some excerpts from his study:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units”

"The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudo- language -- in the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”

"All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.”

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language; although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

"...a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."

“And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia”​

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is"​

Millions of people have been misled by the Pentecostal/charismatic movement teaching that this practice is New Testament tongues. What people call 'tongues' today does not match the biblical description of the gift. Not even Pentecostalism's leading theologian, Gordon Fee, is prepared to say that today's so-called 'tongues' is New Testament tongues. The most he is prepared to say is that it is something 'analogous' to NT tongues.

I take it, its a no do have not spoken in tongues like Jesus says a believer would.

 

[New Birth]

Can you explain what went wrong in Samaria? (Acts 8)

Nothing went wrong there. You find preaching of the gospel and a response to the gospel. They were baptized and later received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The had not received the promise untin they received the Holy Ghost.

 

[Revelation 22:10-12]

I take it, its a no do have not spoken in tongues like Jesus says a believer would.

What happens after a believer seeks the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" apart from the calling of the gospel by that sign of tongues, BUT they still feel the Holy Spirit coming over them again and again and again?

Is that supposed to be a sign that he is being saved again and again and again?

And how can you tell if that tongues was a sign that they were saved when other believers has used that moment to mean that God is calling them into the ministry as Joyce Meyers has done?

And what about the early history of what was referenced by the Catholic Church that because they had tongues, it was a sign that they were keeping the doctrines within?

How can you apply 1 Corinthians 14:22 to those other application of what that event meant when they can easily apply that to yours? Who is right when 1 Corinthians 14:22 says tongues are not to be serving as a sign towards the believers about anything? 1 Corinthians 14:22 says nobody is right to use tongues as a sign or proof of anything..

 

[ViaCrucis]

Answer two is in conflict with answer one.
The believers in Samaria had been water baptized. That should have been sufficient according to answer number two. But it wasn't. So, what was the problem?

The text doesn't tell us. And it's probably the Lutheran in me, but I tend to be uncomfortable attempting to give concrete answers where no information is provided. I am comfortable allowing certain aspects of Scripture be unknown. There are numerous cases where Scripture does not fill us in on all the details, details that probably would have been known to the original recipients and audience of the texts, but aren't to us. We must always remember that Scripture wasn't written to us, we are an outside, third party, often looking in upon conversations between parties that simply aren't us. So when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 "why then are they baptize for the dead?" it gives us a real head scratcher. All attempts to explain what he means is, fundamentally, guesswork--perhaps educated guesswork, but still guesswork. We simply don't know, but presumably the Corinthian audience did know, and that is sufficient. Paul wasn't writing to you or me, but to the Church in Corinth. We still benefit from this writing, because the Church has retained, received, and collected this epistle for the general good of the Church as sacred Scripture, for our mutual benefit as the people of God; and we confess it is inspired and invaluable for us. But, at the end of the day, some things such as this simply have no readily available explanation. And that's okay.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I disagree. Verse 33 tells us that the promise is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Which did not stop, but rather began, at Pentecost.

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Yes, the promised Holy Spirit, that Jesus said He would send, came on Pentecost. Then Peter tells the gathered pilgrims that if they repent and are baptized their sins will be forgiven and they will receive this same Holy Spirit--that is the promise to them, their children, and to all who are far off.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

The text doesn't tell us. And it's probably the Lutheran in me, but I tend to be uncomfortable attempting to give concrete answers where no information is provided. I am comfortable allowing certain aspects of Scripture be unknown. There are numerous cases where Scripture does not fill us in on all the details, details that probably would have been known to the original recipients and audience of the texts, but aren't to us. We must always remember that Scripture wasn't written to us, we are an outside, third party, often looking in upon conversations between parties that simply aren't us. So when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 "why then are they baptize for the dead?" it gives us a real head scratcher. All attempts to explain what he means is, fundamentally, guesswork--perhaps educated guesswork, but still guesswork. We simply don't know, but presumably the Corinthian audience did know, and that is sufficient. Paul wasn't writing to you or me, but to the Church in Corinth. We still benefit from this writing, because the Church has retained, received, and collected this epistle for the general good of the Church as sacred Scripture, for our mutual benefit as the people of God; and we confess it is inspired and invaluable for us. But, at the end of the day, some things such as this simply have no readily available explanation. And that's okay.

-CryptoLutheran

But in this case I think all the relevant clues are given. All we have to do is connect the dots to get the picture. It may be my bias that makes it clear and your bias that makes it fuzzy.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, the promised Holy Spirit, that Jesus said He would send, came on Pentecost. Then Peter tells the gathered pilgrims that if they repent and are baptized their sins will be forgiven and they will receive this same Holy Spirit--that is the promise to them, their children, and to all who are far off.

-CryptoLutheran

The Baptism of repentance was from John the Baptist. It was not introduced at Pentecost.

 

[New Birth]

What happens after a believer seeks the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" apart from the calling of the gospel by that sign of tongues, BUT they still feel the Holy Spirit coming over them again and again and again?

Is that supposed to be a sign that he is being saved again and again and again?

And how can you tell if that tongues was a sign that they were saved when other believers has used that moment to mean that God is calling them into the ministry as Joyce Meyers has done?

And what about the early history of what was referenced by the Catholic Church that because they had tongues, it was a sign that they were keeping the doctrines within?

How can you apply 1 Corinthians 14:22 to those other application of what that event meant when they can easily apply that to yours? Who is right when 1 Corinthians 14:22 says tongues are not to be serving as a sign towards the believers about anything? 1 Corinthians 14:22 says nobody is right to use tongues as a sign or proof of anything..

 

[New Birth]

What happens after a believer seeks the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" apart from the calling of the gospel by that sign of tongues, BUT they still feel the Holy Spirit coming over them again and again and again?

Is that supposed to be a sign that he is being saved again and again and again?

And how can you tell if that tongues was a sign that they were saved when other believers has used that moment to mean that God is calling them into the ministry as Joyce Meyers has done?

And what about the early history of what was referenced by the Catholic Church that because they had tongues, it was a sign that they were keeping the doctrines within?

How can you apply 1 Corinthians 14:22 to those other application of what that event meant when they can easily apply that to yours? Who is right when 1 Corinthians 14:22 says tongues are not to be serving as a sign towards the believers about anything? 1 Corinthians 14:22 says nobody is right to use tongues as a sign or proof of anything..

1. Tongues is the evidence one has received the Holy Spirit. Not some other calling.
2. Some people have faked tongues to deceive others for whatever motive.
3. Concerning Catholics before 325 ad and state run catholic church. Yes the universal church was of a downhill slide into false doctrine. But not everything was lost at that point. Most of what we see in the catholic church was not in place and the common salvation was still baptism in Jesus' name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. With tongues.
4. 1 Corinthians was written to the church and what was written about tongues was concerning the spiritual gift of tongues, no to be confused with the initial evidence as seen in Acts with new converts.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Baptism of repentance was from John the Baptist. It was not introduced at Pentecost.

Correct. Christian Baptism isn't the same thing as John's baptism of repentance. John's baptism was to turn the nation toward God in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, so that John could say that "He must increase and I must decrease". When the Lord went down into the water with John, it fulfilled John's ministry and the purpose for which he had been sent. And it is Christ who instituted Christian Baptism, "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit", it is this baptism that Peter speaks of in Acts 2:38. The baptism he speaks of here isn't for repentance (but does urge repentance along with getting baptized) but for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. The reason why there is forgiveness of sins is because, as St. Paul explains, by this baptism we have been buried, crucified, clothed, and raised with Christ. Having been baptized we have been born again, as the Lord Himself says to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, for here in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism we are born of God by water and the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

But in this case I think all the relevant clues are given. All we have to do is connect the dots to get the picture. It may be my bias that makes it clear and your bias that makes it fuzzy.

All I'm asking is to look at the text critically.

My reading of the text isn't something forced on me, nor am I parroting it (I say this preemptively and to make a point); but instead by examining the text. I have tended, over the years, to ask myself if when I read something if what I think I'm reading is right, and usually then try and see how it has been historically, traditionally been read. If I think I see something in the text that nobody before me has ever seen, then that's a problem, and I can be pretty confident that I am wrong. But if what I think I see in the text is, in fact, what has been believed, and believed consistently since the beginning, as demonstrated by the ancient writings of the fathers, and the various exegetes and theologians over the last two thousand years--then I am more willing to be confident that I'm not imagining it.

That's important to me. I don't want to be clever or special, I want to be faithful and consistent with what has come before me. Tradition is not an ugly word, it's how we can measure what we say today with what the saints who have come before us have said. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, but what are the odds that everyone since the first century until the 21st century is wrong, and suddenly some new person doing things their own way is right?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

Correct. Christian Baptism isn't the same thing as John's baptism of repentance. John's baptism was to turn the nation toward God in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, so that John could say that "He must increase and I must decrease". When the Lord went down into the water with John, it fulfilled John's ministry and the purpose for which he had been sent. And it is Christ who instituted Christian Baptism, "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit", it is this baptism that Peter speaks of in Acts 2:38. The baptism he speaks of here isn't for repentance (but does urge repentance along with getting baptized) but for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. The reason why there is forgiveness of sins is because, as St. Paul explains, by this baptism we have been buried, crucified, clothed, and raised with Christ. Having been baptized we have been born again, as the Lord Himself says to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, for here in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism we are born of God by water and the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

I think you are making more of baptism than you should.
Baptism is a ceremony. A ceremony is an outward expression of an inward reality.
This is why I don't accept infant baptism as a valid personal expression of faith. There is no inward reality being represented in the ceremony. The one being baptized has no say in the process.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I need clarity on this one; i have heard many pastors in my church asking us to pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit. They also say that the evidence of this in-filling is speaking in tongues. I have searched scriptures and don't find the two connected. Every time this is taught, I get frustrated because it seems not to line up with scripture.
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the spirit according to 1 Cor 12.
Why is this taught in churches? Is baptism with the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues? What about those who don't speak in tongues, are they not baptized?
Am I missing something here?

Not everyone has the same gift. Some don’t have the gift of speaking in tongues.

 

[Saint Steven]

All I'm asking is to look at the text critically.

My reading of the text isn't something forced on me, nor am I parroting it (I say this preemptively and to make a point); but instead by examining the text. I have tended, over the years, to ask myself if when I read something if what I think I'm reading is right, and usually then try and see how it has been historically, traditionally been read. If I think I see something in the text that nobody before me has ever seen, then that's a problem, and I can be pretty confident that I am wrong. But if what I think I see in the text is, in fact, what has been believed, and believed consistently since the beginning, as demonstrated by the ancient writings of the fathers, and the various exegetes and theologians over the last two thousand years--then I am more willing to be confident that I'm not imagining it.

That's important to me. I don't want to be clever or special, I want to be faithful and consistent with what has come before me. Tradition is not an ugly word, it's how we can measure what we say today with what the saints who have come before us have said. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, but what are the odds that everyone since the first century until the 21st century is wrong, and suddenly some new person doing things their own way is right?

-CryptoLutheran

What's the point of discussing such things if there is only room for the established traditional consensus of one denomination?

And as I have made very clear, there is sufficient evidence in this passage for what I am seeing in the text. I can read. I don't need a church to explain it to me.

The baptized Samaritan believers had not yet received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Evidenced by what?

The Apostles went to them to lay hands on them, BECAUSE THEY HAD ONLY BEEN BAPTISED WITH WATER (not the Holy Spirit). When the Apostles prayed for them (laid hands on them) they received the Holy Spirit. Evidenced by what?

 

[Saint Steven]

What happens after a believer seeks the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" apart from the calling of the gospel by that sign of tongues, BUT they still feel the Holy Spirit coming over them again and again and again?

Is that supposed to be a sign that he is being saved again and again and again?

And how can you tell if that tongues was a sign that they were saved when other believers has used that moment to mean that God is calling them into the ministry as Joyce Meyers has done?

And what about the early history of what was referenced by the Catholic Church that because they had tongues, it was a sign that they were keeping the doctrines within?

How can you apply 1 Corinthians 14:22 to those other application of what that event meant when they can easily apply that to yours? Who is right when 1 Corinthians 14:22 says tongues are not to be serving as a sign towards the believers about anything? 1 Corinthians 14:22 says nobody is right to use tongues as a sign or proof of anything..

You seem to have a complete misunderstanding about tongues.
You have been misled by Cessationism. That is where this argument about tongues as a sign comes from. Cessationism claims the sign was only for the first century, or the time of the Apostles which is now gone.

And if you are going to use 1Cor.14:22 then you need to consider what goes with it. If you want to claim that tongues is not a sign for believers, then you also have to claim that prophecy is not for unbelievers. Do you make that claim? Probably not.

1 Corinthians 14:22
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think you are making more of baptism than you should.
Baptism is a ceremony. A ceremony is an outward expression of an inward reality.
This is why I don't accept infant baptism as a valid personal expression of faith. There is no inward reality being represented in the ceremony. The one being baptized has no say in the process.

This tendency toward regarding the interior/esoteric/"spiritual" as the more real, superior, or authentic over and against the exterior/exoteric/"material" is one of the massive problems with the modern, contemporary Church. It's not uniquely modern, this tendency has always been a problem going right back to Christian antiquity. It is precisely this which is the basis of Gnosticism, Docetism, and other early heretical movements.

This is why resurrection of the body was so offensive to the ancient Greeks,

"Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also began to debate with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" while others said, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was proclaiming the good news of Jesus and the resurrection. ... For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, 'We will hear you again about this.'" - Acts 17:18, 31-32

For the Greeks, whose philosophers, such as Plato, regarded material existence largely inferior to "spiritual" existence the idea of bodily resurrection seemed positively abhorrent. It should not be surprising, then, that later we find certain heretics, such as the Docetists and Cerinthians arguing that Christ could not truly be human, and that He merely appeared to be human (Docetism) or was a spiritual agent who temporarily inhabited a mortal human (Cerinthianism). It's why various Gnostic sects viewed the creation of the material world as the act of a foolish demigod which resulted in the imprisonment of human souls into physical bodies of flesh, and that some even said that the serpent was a savior come to deliver men from the wicked creator deity and return them to the realm of pure spirit--and that Christ Himself came for this same reason, to enlighten men and make them spiritually knowledgeable of their true identity as caged sparks of the invisible divine.

We find it today, still, whenever there are those who argue against the resurrection of the body, who deny that Christ is truly human, rejecting that God works through external means--water, bread, wine, human ministers, preaching, etc and saying only the internal, invisible, "spiritual" thing matters.

Again, this is hardly new. In 1518, Dr. Martin Luther of Wittenberg University delivered 28 theses as part of his Disputation at Heidelberg. In which, recognizing the deep problem of the time--that men prefer works, wisdom, power, glory over grace, foolishness, weakness, and the cross--said:

"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth." Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

This is the root of the Opinio Legis, the Opinion of the Law, the idea that sinful men can be righteous by their own power. Such consider themselves wise because they speak of God's attributes, His invisibility, His wisdom, His power, etc; and they themselves seek their own wisdom, strength, and power. But the truth of the Gospel is not in God's glory, power, etc--it is in God's foolishness, weakness, it is God as He Himself shows Himself through the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. It is why the Apostle is clear, God chose the foolish things to confound the wise, and He chose the weak things to dismantle the strong. But Jesus Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God, not as the world understands power and wisdom, but it is the wisdom and power of God that seems foolish, weak. It is the ugliness of the cross which is our redemption. The Lord Himself has said, "My strength is made evident in weakness."

And so men will always seek after their own signs, experiences, they will look after internal things, trying to search themselves for the right thoughts, the right feelings, they will seek themselves if they have said the right words, or performed the right works. But all these things are nothing. For man has nothing to offer, but is but a sinful beggar. And so we cannot depend upon ourselves, we cannot depend upon our experiences, our reason, our judgment, our feelings, our thoughts, our actions, or anything of ourselves. We must look utterly and completely outside of ourselves, to the objective, concrete, external things of God. That is why baptism is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it. That is why the Eucharist is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it. That is why when we come to the Table and receive these morsels of bread and wine, we can be confident that we eat not mere bread and wine, but the very and true flesh and blood of Christ our God and Savior; we can be confident that when we came to the water of Baptism--or when our parents or guardians presented us--that it was no mere water, no mere man doing a thing, no mere ceremony or ritual. We can be confident that here God the Almighty has sealed and made His claim upon our entire life.

To be able to say "I am baptized" is to speak words so utterly dreadful to the devil that it shakes the very foundations of hell. Death itself has been shackled and torn apart. Here is Christ, Christ crucified, buried, dead, and raised from the dead and we, with Him, in all that He has done. The one who is baptized has not merely had some nice ceremony performed. Such a person has been nailed to the cross with Jesus, buried in the grave with Jesus, and has received the very life of Jesus Christ. A dead man enters, and comes out alive.

That is what Baptism is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

This tendency toward regarding the interior/esoteric/"spiritual" as the more real, superior, or authentic over and against the exterior/exoteric/"material" is one of the massive problems with the modern, contemporary Church. It's not uniquely modern, this tendency has always been a problem going right back to Christian antiquity. It is precisely this which is the basis of Gnosticism, Docetism, and other early heretical movements.

This is why resurrection of the body was so offensive to the ancient Greeks,

"Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also began to debate with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" while others said, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was proclaiming the good news of Jesus and the resurrection. ... For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, 'We will hear you again about this.'" - Acts 17:18, 31-32

For the Greeks, whose philosophers, such as Plato, regarded material existence largely inferior to "spiritual" existence the idea of bodily resurrection seemed positively abhorrent. It should not be surprising, then, that later we find certain heretics, such as the Docetists and Cerinthians arguing that Christ could not truly be human, and that He merely appeared to be human (Docetism) or was a spiritual agent who temporarily inhabited a mortal human (Cerinthianism). It's why various Gnostic sects viewed the creation of the material world as the act of a foolish demigod which resulted in the imprisonment of human souls into physical bodies of flesh, and that some even said that the serpent was a savior come to deliver men from the wicked creator deity and return them to the realm of pure spirit--and that Christ Himself came for this same reason, to enlighten men and make them spiritually knowledgeable of their true identity as caged sparks of the invisible divine.

We find it today, still, whenever there are those who argue against the resurrection of the body, who deny that Christ is truly human, rejecting that God works through external means--water, bread, wine, human ministers, preaching, etc and saying only the internal, invisible, "spiritual" thing matters.

Again, this is hardly new. In 1518, Dr. Martin Luther of Wittenberg University delivered 28 theses as part of his Disputation at Heidelberg. In which, recognizing the deep problem of the time--that men prefer works, wisdom, power, glory over grace, foolishness, weakness, and the cross--said:

"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth." Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

This is the root of the Opinio Legis, the Opinion of the Law, the idea that sinful men can be righteous by their own power. Such consider themselves wise because they speak of God's attributes, His invisibility, His wisdom, His power, etc; and they themselves seek their own wisdom, strength, and power. But the truth of the Gospel is not in God's glory, power, etc--it is in God's foolishness, weakness, it is God as He Himself shows Himself through the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. It is why the Apostle is clear, God chose the foolish things to confound the wise, and He chose the weak things to dismantle the strong. But Jesus Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God, not as the world understands power and wisdom, but it is the wisdom and power of God that seems foolish, weak. It is the ugliness of the cross which is our redemption. The Lord Himself has said, "My strength is made evident in weakness."

And so men will always seek after their own signs, experiences, they will look after internal things, trying to search themselves for the right thoughts, the right feelings, they will seek themselves if they have said the right words, or performed the right works. But all these things are nothing. For man has nothing to offer, but is but a sinful beggar. And so we cannot depend upon ourselves, we cannot depend upon our experiences, our reason, our judgment, our feelings, our thoughts, our actions, or anything of ourselves. We must look utterly and completely outside of ourselves, to the objective, concrete, external things of God. That is why baptism is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it. That is why the Eucharist is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it. That is why when we come to the Table and receive these morsels of bread and wine, we can be confident that we eat not mere bread and wine, but the very and true flesh and blood of Christ our God and Savior; we can be confident that when we came to the water of Baptism--or when our parents or guardians presented us--that it was no mere water, no mere man doing a thing, no mere ceremony or ritual. We can be confident that here God the Almighty has sealed and made His claim upon our entire life.

To be able to say "I am baptized" is to speak words so utterly dreadful to the devil that it shakes the very foundations of hell. Death itself has been shackled and torn apart. Here is Christ, Christ crucified, buried, dead, and raised from the dead and we, with Him, in all that He has done. The one who is baptized has not merely had some nice ceremony performed. Such a person has been nailed to the cross with Jesus, buried in the grave with Jesus, and has received the very life of Jesus Christ. A dead man enters, and comes out alive.

That is what Baptism is.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks again for such for such a complete and thoughtful response. That is the Catholic position. (as I understand it)

Although it seems a bit much to point to Gnosticism, when my position is biblical.
"... Christ in you, the hope of glory." - Colossians 1:27 -- and
"... People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:7

What then do you make of Constantine's army? All of whom were baptized. An act that contributed to his Sainthood?

Was this outward physical act that was required of them a saving act that they participated in? As you stated, "... baptism is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it." Certainly there were those for whom it was a meaningless act only required of them as duty to the emperor. No different from that perspective to an infant being baptized.

 

[New Birth]

Thanks again for such for such a complete and thoughtful response. That is the Catholic position. (as I understand it)

Although it seems a bit much to point to Gnosticism, when my position is biblical.
"... Christ in you, the hope of glory." - Colossians 1:27 -- and
"... People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:7

What then do you make of Constantine's army? All of whom were baptized. An act that contributed to his Sainthood?

Was this outward physical act that was required of them a saving act that they participated in? As you stated, "... baptism is trustworthy, because God stakes His very word and honor upon it." Certainly there were those for whom it was a meaningless act only required of them as duty to the emperor. No different from that perspective to an infant being baptized.

I agree with this post. Baptism is only effective when IT follows turning from sin, faith in Christ not merely obedience to a political party or religious movement.

 

[Hillsage]

My daughter married a Catholic. When they had their baby I sent them this letter since she told my wife the pressure my daughter was getting. She herself was never baptized until she believed.

Dena,
Your mom told me the other day that you were going to baptize the baby. She said for me to not get upset. I want to tell you from the beginning that I’m not upset…and I’m not even surprised. I know it just goes along with the indoctrination of the religious denomination you have both chosen to be a part of. But I do feel it's my Christian responsibility, to at least send you both something to read concerning ‘water baptism’. I believe it is information that neither of you know about, or understand. I don’t believe your church does either. I say that because, as you know, we also went to the Lutheran church for a couple of years. There is a reason some churches do things differently. You must realize that one of those reasons may be, ‘one is right’ and ‘one is wrong’. Let me give you some verses to consider concerning baptism from a study I made.

BAPTIZING BABIES
MAT 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance,

FROM THIS VERSE YOU CAN SEE THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST EXPECTED PEOPLE TO HAVE SOME VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF REPENTANCE IN THEIR LIFE BEFORE HE WOULD BAPTIZE THEM. CAN AN INFANT DO THAT?

ACT 2:38 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

THIS VERSE ALSO SAYS TO ‘REPENT’ FIRST, AND THEN BE BAPTIZED’. HOW CAN AN INFANT REPENT?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD ‘REPENT’ MEANS IN THE GREEK? IT’S THE WORD metanoeo: to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally feel compunction). DO YOU BELIEVE A BABY THINKS DIFFERENTLY OR HAS RECONSIDERED SOMETHING MORALLY AS A REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO BEING BAPTIZED?

ALSO NOTICE THIS VERSE SAYS ‘YOUR SINS’ PLURAL. HAS AN INFANT COMMITTED SINS? THIS VERSE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ‘SIN’ SINGULAR, AS IN SPEAKING OF ‘ORIGINAL SIN’ (WHICH CATHOLICS/LUTERANS BOTH BELIEVE IN). EVEN ‘IF’ THERE IS SUCH A THING AS BEING BORN WITH AN ‘ORIGINAL SIN’ IN YOUR LIFE…BAPTISM DOESN'T REMOVE IT...GETTING BORN AGAIN DOES!

1PETER 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

DO YOU THINK THAT A BABY IS GOING TO BE BORN WITH A GUILTY CONSCIENCE THAT HE WANTS TO "APPEAL TO GOD" ABOUT? A GUILTY CONSCIENCE ONLY COMES AFTER SOMEONE HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT THEY KNEW THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE. A BABY DOESN’T HAVE THE COGNITIVE ABILITY TO EVEN KNOW THAT THEY ARE COMMITTING SINS.

MAR 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

THIS LAST VERSE IS JESUS HIMSELF SPEAKING. WHAT’S THE FIRST THING HE SAYS ONE MUST DO BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED? JESUS SAID “BELIEVE”! THEN NOTICE WHAT HE SAYS NEXT, "THE ONE WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IS "CONDEMNED". THAT WAS MY EXPERIENCE GROWING UP AS A BAPTIZED INFANT WHO’S PARENTS FOLLOWED THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTIONS OF THEIR DENOMINATION. I WAS BAPTIZED WITHOUT BELIEVING FIRST. I WAS "CONDEMNED" AND DIDN’T EVEN KNOW IT. THAT’S WHY I FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SPEAK UP CONCERNING THIS DECISION YOU’RE ABOUT TO MAKE. IF YOUR CHURCH'S AUTHORITY IS FOLLOWING THE TRADITIONS AND COMMANDMENTS OF MEN OVER THE BIBLE…INCLUDING THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF, THEN YOU HAVE A RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY HERE, THAT’S GREATER THAN I THINK YOU REALIZE. YOU CAN’T ABDICATE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CHURCH.

MAT 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

FOLLOWING TRADITIONS ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE VERSE. JUST BECAUSE YOUR CHURCH HAS DONE SOMETHING FOR A THOUSAND YEARS, DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DONE TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO WHEN JESUS AND THE APOSTLES SET THE STANDARD AND THEN WROTE IT IN LETTERS WHICH BECAME THE GUIDE BOOK/BIBLE FOR US TO FOLLOW.

I HOPE I HAVE SHARED ENOUGH OF WHAT THE ‘SCRIPTURES’ SAY FOR YOU TO HAVE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. YOU SHOULD ASK FOR YOUR CHURCHES SIDE TOO (BASED UPON SCRIPTURE). I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE STAND BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD, TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT WE’VE DONE…SAYING, "I DID WHAT THE CHURCH SAID" IS ONLY RIGHT IF THE CHURCH IS RIGHT. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WILL NOT BE A DEFENSE IN GOD’S COURT, ANYMORE THAN IT IS IN A COURT OF LAW HERE ON EARTH.

HOS 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

I HOPE THIS LETTER DOESN’T SOUND HARSH, BECAUSE I’M REALLY NOT TRYING TO LEAVE THAT IMPRESSION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION BASED UPON FACTS. BUT, AS YOU KNOW, CHRISTIANITY IS AN AREA WHERE I BELIEVE I HAVE STUDIED ENOUGH TO SPEAK WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR DOCTRINE OF INFANT BAPTISM. I WOULDN’T EXPECT YOU TO COME TO ME FOR ADVICE IN AN AREA WHERE I SIMPLY BELIEVED WHATEVER SOMEONE TOLD ME I WAS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE. BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AREAS. WE HAD TO MAKE THIS SAME DECISION FOR YOU/DENA AND KORY. AND WE WEREN’T JUST BUCKING THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION OF ONE FAMILY AS YOU GUYS ARE, BUT BOTH OF OUR FAMILIES. I JUST DON’T WANT YOU TO MAKE AN UNINFORMED DECISION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I’D BE HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER THEM. ASK YOUR CHURCH OR ANYONE ELSE PRESSURING YOU, FOR ONE BIBLE VERSE PROVING THAT A BABY WAS EVER BAPTIZED IN SCRIPTURE…THEY DON’T HAVE ONE. THESE ARE WEIGHTY MATTERS IN MY OPINION, AND I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO MERELY EASE YOUR CONSCIENCE BY CONCEDING TO A RELIGIOUS PROCEDURE YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT.

LOVE TO BOTH OF YOU,
~Dad~

P.S. Mom asked me to address some of the verses she knows Lutherans will use.

MAT 19:14 (Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16) but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

ALL THREE OF THE ABOVE VERSES ARE PARALLEL PASSAGES IN THE THREE GOSPELS AND SAY THE SAME THING. "DON'T HINDER THEM" (CHILDREN NOT BABIES) FROM COMING AS AN ACT OF THEIR OWN WILL, WHICH IS A FAR CRY FROM 'BRING YOUR BABY'. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

ACT 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

IN THE ABOVE VERSES, WHICH SAY THE WHOLE HOUSEHOLD WAS BAPTIZED, YOU CAN EASILY READ WHERE IT SAYS "BELIEVE" IS ONCE AGAIN A 'FIRST REQUIREMENT'. IT ALSO SAYS THE “THE WORD OF THE LORD'” WAS SPOKE TO ALL IN HIS HOUSE. AND IT WAS AFTER HEARING THIS WORD THAT THEY COULD CONSCIOUSLY MAKE A DECISION TO BELIEVE. IT IS A GREAT ERROR OF ASSUMPTION TO SAY THIS MAN HAD BABIES IN HIS HOUSEHOLD. NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE CAN SUPPORT THAT.

I HOPE WE CAN MAKE THIS A DIALOGUE OF OUR FAITH AND NOT JUST A ONE SIDED SERMON. I SIMPLY CARE DEEPLY FOR BOTH OF YOU AND THINGS SPIRITUAL. I LOVE TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND WELCOME ANYTHING YOUR CHURCH MIGHT GIVE IN REBUTTAL TO WHAT I’VE JUST WRITTEN.

I sent this letter many years ago. I baptized my granddaughter last year when she moved here from Dallas to go to our junior college.