Baptized in the Spirit

swordsman1 said:

Most scholars, even Pentecostal ones, reject the idea of Baptism in the Spirit being an empowering event subsequent to salvation, but rather affirm it to be the act of uniting the believer to the body of Christ at their conversion (1 Cor 12:13). For example, Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee writes:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.

Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).

If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.

In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.

To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.​

Click to expand...

Bible2+ said:

Note that even Paul himself wasn't healed of something:

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Satan can be the one who causes people to suffer (Luke 13:16). Jesus came to counteract Satan's work in the world (John 10:10). Jesus miraculously healed multitudes of people (Matthew 12:15b) oppressed by Satan (Acts 10:38). And Jesus still miraculously heals some people today, either directly by his Spiritual power, or through Christians who have been given the Spiritual gift of miraculous healing (1 Corinthians 12:9).

Also, as you have pointed out, Christians, with their hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2), can look beyond any temporal suffering which they may be undergoing (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, Revelation 2:10-11; 1 Peter 4:12-13). God can permit some Christians to suffer in order to help them to remain humble before him and others (2 Corinthians 12:7). Also, suffering can strengthen Christians spiritually (Romans 5:3-5). It can help them to stop putting any hope in that which is merely mortal and temporal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, John 12:25, Matthew 10:37-39). Also, when God allows Christians to suffer, he provides them with his comfort to help them through their suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7).

People should not (as is sometimes done) say that it is evil for God to allow human suffering. For the only way to eradicate any possibility of human suffering would be to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin (John 5:14). And the only way to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin would be to eradicate their free will. It is better for humans to have free will and for there to be the possibility of suffering, than for humans to be robots with no free will, and for there to be no possibility of suffering. By becoming a human in Jesus Christ, and suffering and dying for human sins, God has made a way for believers to retain their free will, and yet escape suffering in hell forever for their sins (John 3:36, Revelation 14:10-11). For as the human/divine Son of God, Jesus' suffering satisfied God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:41,46).

Also, suffering is like gravity, in that while it can cause people problems, who would want to live without it? For example, someone could say that God was cruel to create gravity because it sometimes causes old people to fall down and break their hips. But who would want to get rid of gravity and float off into space? It is the same way with suffering. Someone could say that God was cruel to create the possibility of suffering. But if God made it impossible for people to suffer, what could happen to them? For example, imagine that a man went on a camping trip, built a campfire, and laid down in his sleeping bag near the fire and fell asleep. While he was sleeping, he turned over at one point in such a way that his hand went into the fire. But because of his ability to suffer, he immediately woke up and pulled his hand out of the fire, keeping it from getting badly burned. But if he had had no ability to suffer, he would have stayed asleep with his hand in the fire, and woken up in the morning with no hand: It would have been burned clean off.

So suffering can be a good thing when it causes people to draw back from something which will harm them. God sometimes brings suffering to those he loves as a way of chastening them and getting them to repent from a sin (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:5-11). For God knows how much harm their sin will cause them (Galatians 6:8, Hebrews 10:26-29), while on their own they could be completely oblivious to the danger (Proverbs 14:12).

-

Also, any lack of healing in a particular congregation, for example, does not negate the validity of the Spiritual gifts per se. For God does not give the gift of healing to everyone (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). And he does not choose to heal in every instance (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). Also, people can prevent themselves from being healed by a lack of faith (Luke 8:48, Acts 14:9).

Click to expand...

Bible2+ said:

Note that even Paul himself wasn't healed of something:

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Satan can be the one who causes people to suffer (Luke 13:16). Jesus came to counteract Satan's work in the world (John 10:10). Jesus miraculously healed multitudes of people (Matthew 12:15b) oppressed by Satan (Acts 10:38). And Jesus still miraculously heals some people today, either directly by his Spiritual power, or through Christians who have been given the Spiritual gift of miraculous healing (1 Corinthians 12:9).

Also, as you have pointed out, Christians, with their hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2), can look beyond any temporal suffering which they may be undergoing (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, Revelation 2:10-11; 1 Peter 4:12-13). God can permit some Christians to suffer in order to help them to remain humble before him and others (2 Corinthians 12:7). Also, suffering can strengthen Christians spiritually (Romans 5:3-5). It can help them to stop putting any hope in that which is merely mortal and temporal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, John 12:25, Matthew 10:37-39). Also, when God allows Christians to suffer, he provides them with his comfort to help them through their suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7).

People should not (as is sometimes done) say that it is evil for God to allow human suffering. For the only way to eradicate any possibility of human suffering would be to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin (John 5:14). And the only way to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin would be to eradicate their free will. It is better for humans to have free will and for there to be the possibility of suffering, than for humans to be robots with no free will, and for there to be no possibility of suffering. By becoming a human in Jesus Christ, and suffering and dying for human sins, God has made a way for believers to retain their free will, and yet escape suffering in hell forever for their sins (John 3:36, Revelation 14:10-11). For as the human/divine Son of God, Jesus' suffering satisfied God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:41,46).

Also, suffering is like gravity, in that while it can cause people problems, who would want to live without it? For example, someone could say that God was cruel to create gravity because it sometimes causes old people to fall down and break their hips. But who would want to get rid of gravity and float off into space? It is the same way with suffering. Someone could say that God was cruel to create the possibility of suffering. But if God made it impossible for people to suffer, what could happen to them? For example, imagine that a man went on a camping trip, built a campfire, and laid down in his sleeping bag near the fire and fell asleep. While he was sleeping, he turned over at one point in such a way that his hand went into the fire. But because of his ability to suffer, he immediately woke up and pulled his hand out of the fire, keeping it from getting badly burned. But if he had had no ability to suffer, he would have stayed asleep with his hand in the fire, and woken up in the morning with no hand: It would have been burned clean off.

So suffering can be a good thing when it causes people to draw back from something which will harm them. God sometimes brings suffering to those he loves as a way of chastening them and getting them to repent from a sin (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:5-11). For God knows how much harm their sin will cause them (Galatians 6:8, Hebrews 10:26-29), while on their own they could be completely oblivious to the danger (Proverbs 14:12).

-

Also, any lack of healing in a particular congregation, for example, does not negate the validity of the Spiritual gifts per se. For God does not give the gift of healing to everyone (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). And he does not choose to heal in every instance (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). Also, people can prevent themselves from being healed by a lack of faith (Luke 8:48, Acts 14:9).

Click to expand...

Oscarr said:

Paul's infirmities are not an argument against divine healing. Healing is not the major issue among Christian believers as some make out. But healing of terminal diseases is an issue for the unsaved person because if he dies outside of Christ he will have a very miserable eternity. This is why divine healing happens more frequently among unsaved people, especially those in the Third World because it often leads to salvation, and so this is the aim of divine healing coupled with evangelism. This is what happened in the Book of Acts. We don't see any examples of healing of believers in Acts. When healing occurred, it was most if not all associated with sharing the gospel with the unsaved. It was the same with the casting out of demons. We don't see this among believers in the early church. It was coupled with evangelism. Pagans got demons cast out of them and then they got saved.

This why healing crusades attended mainly by Christian believers don't have a lot of healings despite the faith-building preaching and claims that "God will heal you". People get disillusioned and skeptical because they fail to understand the real intention of divine healing. There were no healing crusades in Acts.

In the early days of the Pentecostal movement, there were widespread healings, especially in the tent crusades of Maria Woodsworth Etter, Oral Roberts, and A A Allen. These were short-lived because I believe that this was God restoring the ministry to the Church on a general basis. But in Third World countries, (Africa, Asia, and South America) where there is a strong pagan influence, divine healing is more prevalent among unsaved people who come to evangelistic meetings. Reinhard Bonnke received many more testimonies of healing from those who came to his crusades in African than from those in Western Countries where most attendees were believers from different churches in the city.

The ministry of healing in the church is covered by James, and it speaks more of recovery from sickness rather than an instantaneous miracle. The infilling of the Holy Spirit is enduement of power for service - to get out there and win souls for Christ, not for the self-indulgence of believers. This was the thrust of Mark 16 and the Lord told about the signs and accompany believers, including casting out of demons and healing the sick. The context was the great Commission to get out into the world and save sinners. Modern Charismatics have changed the meaning of signs and wonders and have moved them from evangelism to what they want to happen within their Christian "clubs". Many Charismatic crusades (Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn are examples) are attended by mainly Christians, but it seems that in Benny Hinn's crusade that I saw on Youtube, an unbeliever was healed of deafness, and then got saved as a result. But many other large crusade gatherings seem like "Hallelujah Fests" for the self indulgence of religious folk. I saw Todd Bentley and his antics and I could not imagine any unbeliever accepting Christ in the face of that!

It is also interesting to note where there are all sorts of manifestations with people shaking, falling over, writhing on the ground, etc., when one looks at the leaders and preachers, they don't do it. Does anyone see that as significant? And what proportion of females to males are more prominent with the unusual manifestations? From what I see, I don't see many males having extreme manifestations. But I could be corrected on that.

Click to expand...

Oscarr said:

Paul's infirmities are not an argument against divine healing. Healing is not the major issue among Christian believers as some make out. But healing of terminal diseases is an issue for the unsaved person because if he dies outside of Christ he will have a very miserable eternity. This is why divine healing happens more frequently among unsaved people, especially those in the Third World because it often leads to salvation, and so this is the aim of divine healing coupled with evangelism. This is what happened in the Book of Acts. We don't see any examples of healing of believers in Acts. When healing occurred, it was most if not all associated with sharing the gospel with the unsaved. It was the same with the casting out of demons. We don't see this among believers in the early church. It was coupled with evangelism. Pagans got demons cast out of them and then they got saved.

This why healing crusades attended mainly by Christian believers don't have a lot of healings despite the faith-building preaching and claims that "God will heal you". People get disillusioned and skeptical because they fail to understand the real intention of divine healing. There were no healing crusades in Acts.

In the early days of the Pentecostal movement, there were widespread healings, especially in the tent crusades of Maria Woodsworth Etter, Oral Roberts, and A A Allen. These were short-lived because I believe that this was God restoring the ministry to the Church on a general basis. But in Third World countries, (Africa, Asia, and South America) where there is a strong pagan influence, divine healing is more prevalent among unsaved people who come to evangelistic meetings. Reinhard Bonnke received many more testimonies of healing from those who came to his crusades in African than from those in Western Countries where most attendees were believers from different churches in the city.

The ministry of healing in the church is covered by James, and it speaks more of recovery from sickness rather than an instantaneous miracle. The infilling of the Holy Spirit is enduement of power for service - to get out there and win souls for Christ, not for the self-indulgence of believers. This was the thrust of Mark 16 and the Lord told about the signs and accompany believers, including casting out of demons and healing the sick. The context was the great Commission to get out into the world and save sinners. Modern Charismatics have changed the meaning of signs and wonders and have moved them from evangelism to what they want to happen within their Christian "clubs". Many Charismatic crusades (Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn are examples) are attended by mainly Christians, but it seems that in Benny Hinn's crusade that I saw on Youtube, an unbeliever was healed of deafness, and then got saved as a result. But many other large crusade gatherings seem like "Hallelujah Fests" for the self indulgence of religious folk. I saw Todd Bentley and his antics and I could not imagine any unbeliever accepting Christ in the face of that!

It is also interesting to note where there are all sorts of manifestations with people shaking, falling over, writhing on the ground, etc., when one looks at the leaders and preachers, they don't do it. Does anyone see that as significant? And what proportion of females to males are more prominent with the unusual manifestations? From what I see, I don't see many males having extreme manifestations. But I could be corrected on that.

Click to expand...

1stcenturylady said:

Unfortunately, Todd Bentley fell. He divorced his wife, and married his mistress. (Same as my husband did to me)

Click to expand...

Oscarr said:

Probably explains why he didn't really impress me when I viewed in on Youtube.

Click to expand...

1stcenturylady said:

Oscarr, read my post to Bible2 about the thorn in the flesh. You will find it interesting.

Click to expand...

1stcenturylady said:

His mistress/wife has a kinulini spirit. She is possessed. Have you seen her?

Anyway, did you read my post to Bible2 on the thorn in the flesh?

Click to expand...

Oscarr said:

I read it. I don't belief that Paul's thorn in the flesh was sickness either. He was severely persecuted everywhere he went. Out of all the ministries of the time, he got the worst deal by far. He did talk about his infirmities and I think that the stress of his ministry, the imprisonment and beatings took their toll on him as he got older. It is not surprising that some big-name preachers go off the rails because they come nowhere near the type of stress, suffering, and persecution that Paul went through. Because they had it easy they got lifted up with pride and consequently fell. Paul knew that his thorn in his side was to keep him humble in the face of his great success in ministry.

Click to expand...

Oscarr said:

It is interesting that you are quoting Gordon Fee, who is a Continuist and firmly teaches that the gifts of the Spirit, including the current practice of tongues in the P/C churches are genuine. I have his volume on 1 Corinthians, and The Holy Spirit in the Epistles of Paul.

Click to expand...

Bible2+ said:

Note that even Paul himself wasn't healed of something:

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Satan can be the one who causes people to suffer (Luke 13:16). Jesus came to counteract Satan's work in the world (John 10:10). Jesus miraculously healed multitudes of people (Matthew 12:15b) oppressed by Satan (Acts 10:38). And Jesus still miraculously heals some people today, either directly by his Spiritual power, or through Christians who have been given the Spiritual gift of miraculous healing (1 Corinthians 12:9).

Also, as you have pointed out, Christians, with their hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2), can look beyond any temporal suffering which they may be undergoing (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, Revelation 2:10-11; 1 Peter 4:12-13). God can permit some Christians to suffer in order to help them to remain humble before him and others (2 Corinthians 12:7). Also, suffering can strengthen Christians spiritually (Romans 5:3-5). It can help them to stop putting any hope in that which is merely mortal and temporal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, John 12:25, Matthew 10:37-39). Also, when God allows Christians to suffer, he provides them with his comfort to help them through their suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7).

People should not (as is sometimes done) say that it is evil for God to allow human suffering. For the only way to eradicate any possibility of human suffering would be to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin (John 5:14). And the only way to eradicate any possibility of humans committing sin would be to eradicate their free will. It is better for humans to have free will and for there to be the possibility of suffering, than for humans to be robots with no free will, and for there to be no possibility of suffering. By becoming a human in Jesus Christ, and suffering and dying for human sins, God has made a way for believers to retain their free will, and yet escape suffering in hell forever for their sins (John 3:36, Revelation 14:10-11). For as the human/divine Son of God, Jesus' suffering satisfied God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:41,46).

Also, suffering is like gravity, in that while it can cause people problems, who would want to live without it? For example, someone could say that God was cruel to create gravity because it sometimes causes old people to fall down and break their hips. But who would want to get rid of gravity and float off into space? It is the same way with suffering. Someone could say that God was cruel to create the possibility of suffering. But if God made it impossible for people to suffer, what could happen to them? For example, imagine that a man went on a camping trip, built a campfire, and laid down in his sleeping bag near the fire and fell asleep. While he was sleeping, he turned over at one point in such a way that his hand went into the fire. But because of his ability to suffer, he immediately woke up and pulled his hand out of the fire, keeping it from getting badly burned. But if he had had no ability to suffer, he would have stayed asleep with his hand in the fire, and woken up in the morning with no hand: It would have been burned clean off.

So suffering can be a good thing when it causes people to draw back from something which will harm them. God sometimes brings suffering to those he loves as a way of chastening them and getting them to repent from a sin (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:5-11). For God knows how much harm their sin will cause them (Galatians 6:8, Hebrews 10:26-29), while on their own they could be completely oblivious to the danger (Proverbs 14:12).

-

Also, any lack of healing in a particular congregation, for example, does not negate the validity of the Spiritual gifts per se. For God does not give the gift of healing to everyone (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). And he does not choose to heal in every instance (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). Also, people can prevent themselves from being healed by a lack of faith (Luke 8:48, Acts 14:9).

Click to expand...

W2L said:

Whatever the reason, without God we have no hope, so i'll be thankful that the Lord helps me in other ways, some of which you mentioned. Also, it may be that God has given mankind doctors. The bible said that God made the blacksmith and other such craftsmen, (Isaiah 54:16) so God must have created the doctors as well.

Click to expand...

swordsman1 said:

I quoted Gordon Fee to make the point that even Pentecostalism's most respected theologian does not agree with the old school Pentecostal doctrine of Baptism in the Holy Spirit being an event subsequent to salvation, but rather occurs at conversion for all believers. Virtually all respected theologians, whether continuist or cessationist, now take this view.

As to Fee's views on modern glossolalia, he is not at all convinced it is genuine New Testament tongues. The most he is prepared to say about the modern practice is it is something analogous to tongues:

Gordon Fee - Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God
The question as to whether the 'speaking in tongues' in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot - and probably irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit that functions in many of the same ways, and for its practitioners has value similar to that described by Paul.​

Click to expand...

W2L said in post #115:

Whatever the reason, without God we have no hope . . .

Click to expand...

Oscarr said in post #117:

I have come to the view that we do get indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion. Whether we get endued with power for service by the Holy Spirit right then is still doubtful for me. Paul says that novices should not be given ministry unless they be lifted up with pride.

Click to expand...