What happens spiritually that makes us born again?

[bling]

I'll Quote Macarthur for context. on these passages in Acts. If you can give me your thoughts on this.


" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him. The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one"....

"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...

By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body....

Today, believers receive the Spirit at salvation (cf.1 Cor. 12:13). There was no need for delay after Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Old Testament saints were already included in the church. (Macarthur)


Today...

"Being filled with the spirit must be distinguished from being baptized with the spirit. The apostle Paul carefully defines the baptism with the spirit as that act of Christ by which He places believers into His body (Romans 6:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27). In contrast to much errant teaching today, the New Testament nowhere commands believers to seek the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It is a sovereign, single, unrepeatable act on Gods part, and is no more an experience than are its companions justification and adoption. Although some wrongly view the baptism with the Spirit as the initiation into the ranks of the spiritual elite, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the baptism with the spirit is not to divide the body of Christ, but to unify it. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, through the baptism with the Spirit "we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13; cf. Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4:4-6)

Unlike the baptism with the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit is an experience and should be continuous. Although filled initially on the day of Pentecost, Peter was filled again in Acts 4:8. Many of the same people filled with the Spirit in Acts 2 were filled again in Acts 4:31. Acts 6:5 describes Stephen as a man "full of faith and the Holy Spirit," yet Acts 7:55 records his being filled again. Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 9:17 and again in Acts 13:9.

While there is no command in scripture to be baptized with the Spirit, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18 ). The grammatical construction of that passage indicates believers are to be continuously being filled with the Spirit. Those who would be filled with the Spirit must first empty themselves. That involves confession of sin and dying to selfishness and self will. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to consciously practice the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and to have a mind saturated with the Word of God. Colossians 3:16-25 delineates the results of "letting the word of Christ richly dwell" in us. They are the same ones that result from the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:19-33). As believers yield the moment by moment decisions of life to His control, they "walk by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16). The baptism of the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes." (Macarthur)

Macarthur said: " the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts.

But wait! The Bibles says prior to the apostles coming they were baptized: Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

So, why was that not Christian water baptism?

Look again since Macarthur does not address this: Acts 8: 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

The Bibles does not say John and Peter baptized them, but prayed over them and laid hands on them, there is nothing about a “rebaptism”?

The example is still for us to baptize “someway?” in the name of Jesus and then some other way (this being by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands), receive miraculous powers of the Spirit.

They are also called “converts” prior to obtaining the miraculous powers of the Spirit.

Macarthur comes up with quite a story, but why would it not also apply to the Ethiopian Eunuch?

I do not agree with Macarthur’s “logic” concerning the Samarians.

Please go on and read further in Acts 8: 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” … 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing

This certainly sounds like water immersion baptism, so why do we not follow this example?

 

[Dave...]

Macarthur said: " the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts.

But wait! The Bibles says prior to the apostles coming they were baptized: Acts 8:12 ***(Water baptism in Jesus' name)*** But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

So, why was that not Christian water baptism?

Look again since Macarthur does not address this: Acts 8: 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit ***(the Baptism with the Holy Spirit)***.

The Bibles does not say John and Peter baptized them, but prayed over them and laid hands on them, there is nothing about a “rebaptism”?

Hey bling.

The believers in Samaria were water baptized. The reason they had to wait has been given already.

"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...

By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body...."

The receiving of the Holy Spirit indwelling is the baptism with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). Look at your quote above. I added ***(---)*** to explain.

The example is still for us to baptize “someway?” in the name of Jesus and then some other way (this being by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands), receive miraculous powers of the Spirit.

Bling, what you're doing is using a very unique and unrepeatable circumstance in time and applying it as the norm for today. Are you an OT believer? Were you a believer in the Gospel both before and after the death, resurrection and ascension? Are we just now seeing the Promises realized for all from the OT to usher in the NT? See what I mean? Stay in the Epistles for the norm for today. And when you read Acts, and even the Gospels, there is a transition that must be considered when interpreting that Scripture. Matthew Mark Luke and John are all still OT up until each records the death of Christ on the cross. When He ascended, those gifts began to be given. To some it was owed to already, as they already heard the Gospel and believed. Some, it was promised that they would believe the Gospel, since they were true OT believers with an genuine OT faith who were already declared righteous by promise. That Promise can only be realized when they believe the Gospel. They were predestined to make that step in faith, from true OT believer to true NT Gospel believer so they would also receive those promises.

They are also called “converts” prior to obtaining the miraculous powers of the Spirit.

Yes, many believed, but where due the Promises. Mainly, the receiving of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that would place the into Christ, thus called the placing into/baptism with the Holy Spirit.

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Macarthur comes up with quite a story, but why would it not also apply to the Ethiopian Eunuch?

I do not agree with Macarthur’s “logic” concerning the Samarians.

Please go on and read further in Acts 8: 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” … 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing

This certainly sounds like water immersion baptism, so why do we not follow this example?

He most likely received the baptism with the Holy Spirit in vs. 37 when He believed. Then He was water baptized. Why is that a problem?

Dave

 

[Dave...]

You say: “In the OT, they didn't have the indwelling. But they did have the Holy Spirit "upon" them. That was only for specific tasks.” Contrasting the NT and OT I would say: “portions of the Spirit”, but are you just calling it different in some other way?

There are no portions of the Holy Spirit. There is indwelling in the NT, and upon in the OT. When someone has the Holy Spirit upon them in the OT, it is less in power because it's not indwelling, but not less in portion. It's the tasks that are being portioned out.

Cornelius and household seemed to receive a performance portion of the HS prior to the indwelling portion of the Spirit like those in the OT?

Remember, the people who had the Holy Spirit upon them were Prophets in the OT, and those that they asked to aid them with their tasks. And upon the Apostles, still in the OT, and those were were asked to aid them, commonly called associates, up until they recieved the indwelling, on or just after Pentecost.

As far as I know, Cornelius did not have a task, therefore did not have the Holy Spirit upon Him in the OT. In Acts, Being a true OT believer, He was given the indwelling as promised when He believed in the Gospel and was baptized into Christ with that indwelling of the Holy Spirit, thus receiving power.

Say a different portion of HS and saying just different type of HS, sounds the same.

There's one Holy Spirit, always whole. There is upon, and there is indwelling. Upon is, in my opinion, is somehow generic, perhaps an OT type of the NT indwelling? Or, at the very least less powerful than the indwelling.

What verses are you using to say: Baptism of fire is judgement and not hardships/persecution on Christ and Christians?

Matthew 3:10-12 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Matt. 20: 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant.

Mark 10: 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,

Look at both these passages above, Mark uses “Baptism hardship that Christ will go through and the apostles will go through and Jesus is not talking about “judgement”.

Look at Mark 10 above.

Addressed above.

The cup that Jesus is referring to is His coming death on the cross. His message to the Apostles is the same as in Mathew 10:38

Mathew 10:38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." (Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, 14:27)

Dave

 

[timothyu]

There's one Holy Spirit, always whole

It is the will of God.

 

[Dave...]

It is the will of God.

I get what you mean by using the word portion, it just suggests, or implies pieces and parts. Kind of like filling seems to suggest more of the Holy Spirit, but in reality, it means more under the Holy Spirits control, or guidance. That's why I compared the two.

Dave

 

[timothyu]

it means more under the Holy Spirits control, or guidance.

Often dependent on how much we are willing to let it work in us. I've often asked that if the HS is present then how come so many still refuse to follow the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only gospel..

 

[ARBITER01]

There can be some confusion with people's terminology in this area.

There is only one Spiritual immersion, and that is when we are immersed into The Holy Spirit and born again by the blood of Jesus. There is of course, only one water immersion after our born from above experience, but there is not another Spiritual immersion that people claim, it is a filling inside, but people tend to always use the term "baptism of The Holy Spirit." It should properly be called "the filling of The Holy Spirit" according to scripture.

At least in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

 

[timothyu]

It should properly be called "the filling of The Holy Spirit" according to scripture.

Is that why some people say others are full of it?

 

[Dave...]

There can be some confusion with people's terminology in this area.

There is only one Spiritual immersion, and that is when we are immersed into The Holy Spirit and born again by the blood of Jesus. There is of course, only one water immersion after our born from above experience, but there is not another Spiritual immersion that people claim, it is a filling inside, but people tend to always use the term "baptism of The Holy Spirit." It should properly be called "the filling of The Holy Spirit" according to scripture.

At least in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

Hey Arb

It is Christ we are immersed into. That's why we call it "in Christ". It's a spiritual immersion that the Holy Spirit is the agent of (1 Corinthians 12:13). The indwelling. I would make the distinction between the filling and the Spirit baptism as the Spirit baptism, or placing into is what makes us one with Jesus, placed into Him. As MacArthur once said, "The baptism of the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes.".

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is what places us in Christ, making us born again and justified. The filling comes after. Post #32 after "Today..."

Dave

 

[ARBITER01]

Hey Arb

It is Christ we are immersed into. That's why we call it "in Christ". It's a spiritual immersion that the Holy Spirit is the agent of (1 Corinthians 12:13).

We are both right actually.

Co 12:13 For by one Spirit were we all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Act 1:5 because John, indeed, immersed in water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence."

We are immersed in The Holy Spirit as the text says, but that immersion is an immersion into Christ because that is where The Holy Spirit applies the blood of Jesus to our fallen human spirit and we are raised to newness of life. We belong to Jesus from that point on.

The indwelling. I would make the distinction between the filling and the Spirit baptism as the Spirit baptism, or placing into is what makes us one with Jesus, placed into Him. As MacArthur once said, "The baptism of the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes.".

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is what places us in Christ, making us born again and justified. The filling comes after. Post #32 after "Today..."

Dave

Don't quote macarthur to me. I'm a Assemblies of GOD Pentecostal, he spent most of his life writing books against us and badmouthing us.

He's also wrong.