ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,343
26,789
Pacific Northwest
✟728,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Paul says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;" (1 Corinthians 1:14). This showed the unimportant nature of water baptism. First, he thank God he did not baptize the majority of the Corinthians with the exception of Crispus, and Gaius.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that Baptism is unimportant because Paul, in the specific case of the Church in Corinth, is glad he did not personally perform the baptismal rites. It does follow that Paul, in the context of Corinthian factionalism (which is what he is talking about here), is glad he didn't personally conduct the baptismal rites on many. As Paul does not want his name glorified.

Besides, if baptism was the one true baptism, then why did John the baptist say the following words?

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11).

John's baptism and Christian Baptism are entirely different things.

We baptize by the name and authority of Jesus Christ who said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" and as St. Peter says, "for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38).

John's baptism prefigures Christian Baptism. This is why in Acts 19 St. Paul asks the group, "Which baptism did you receive?" And they say they received John's baptism, which as Paul explains was a "baptism of repentance". Following this the Apostle gives them Christian Baptism and then lays hands on them (Chrismation).

Sure, you can say this is just Pentecost in Acts of the Apostles 2, and the event with Cornelius in Acts of the Apostles 10, but we also learn that others received the Spirit baptism (like in Acts of the Apostles 8, and in Acts of the Apostles 19).

Neither Acts 8 or 19 mention baptism with the Holy Spirit.

We know that in Romans 6 that there is a baptism that can help us to overcome grievous sin. Surely water baptism does not help to do that, but only baptism into the Spirit does that.

This Baptism unites us to Christ and to His death, we have therefore been buried with Christ in Baptism. It is in light of our Baptism that we are to regard ourselves dead to sin and alive to God. Read through Romans chapter 6 again.

Since in Baptism we have died, sharing in Christ's death. We have therefore also been raised up with Christ in Baptism. Therefore as the baptized people of Jesus Christ we should not take lightly the grace of God which we have received. For the Apostle mentions these things in the context of, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more" and "What then shall we say? That we ought to continue to sin in order that grace may abound? Heaven forbid!" The immensity of God's grace, the immensity of what God has done for us on Christ's account and given us as pure grace is not excuse to continue living our lives as slaves to sin, but rather it should be the impetus that pushes us away from sin. It is in light of God's grace, in light of our Baptism, that we should now see ourselves as dead to sin and alive to God.

For we are told in Galatians 5:16 that if we walk after the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

And we know that all who are born of water and the Spirit are born of God, and since we have received the promised Holy Spirit by God's grace in the waters of Holy Baptism, we have God's assurance and promise that we belong to Jesus Christ, are children of God, and have the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as God's people we should abide and walk by the Spirit and not the lusts of the flesh.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BCsenior

Still an evangelist
Aug 31, 2017
2,980
715
British Columbia
✟72,426.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Neither Acts 8 or 19 mention baptism with the Holy Spirit.
They don't have to ... to prove that they are speaking about the Spirit baptism.
People are supposed to actually know that ...
when tongues occur amongst believers ...
they are receiving the H.S. baptism, or they already have it.
End of story.

Except for ... Do all facets of an event ever get reported?
But, this is not the most important thing.

What is important is that the Holy Spirit gives revelation to those whom He chooses to have it.
And often He doesn't give it ... because people are NOT OPEN to receive it.

I am explaining all of this to those who are OPEN to receiving spiritual Truth.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that Baptism is unimportant because Paul, in the specific case of the Church in Corinth, is glad he did not personally perform the baptismal rites. It does follow that Paul, in the context of Corinthian factionalism (which is what he is talking about here), is glad he didn't personally conduct the baptismal rites on many. As Paul does not want his name glorified.



John's baptism and Christian Baptism are entirely different things.

We baptize by the name and authority of Jesus Christ who said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" and as St. Peter says, "for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38).

John's baptism prefigures Christian Baptism. This is why in Acts 19 St. Paul asks the group, "Which baptism did you receive?" And they say they received John's baptism, which as Paul explains was a "baptism of repentance". Following this the Apostle gives them Christian Baptism and then lays hands on them (Chrismation).



Neither Acts 8 or 19 mention baptism with the Holy Spirit.



This Baptism unites us to Christ and to His death, we have therefore been buried with Christ in Baptism. It is in light of our Baptism that we are to regard ourselves dead to sin and alive to God. Read through Romans chapter 6 again.

Since in Baptism we have died, sharing in Christ's death. We have therefore also been raised up with Christ in Baptism. Therefore as the baptized people of Jesus Christ we should not take lightly the grace of God which we have received. For the Apostle mentions these things in the context of, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more" and "What then shall we say? That we ought to continue to sin in order that grace may abound? Heaven forbid!" The immensity of God's grace, the immensity of what God has done for us on Christ's account and given us as pure grace is not excuse to continue living our lives as slaves to sin, but rather it should be the impetus that pushes us away from sin. It is in light of God's grace, in light of our Baptism, that we should now see ourselves as dead to sin and alive to God.



And we know that all who are born of water and the Spirit are born of God, and since we have received the promised Holy Spirit by God's grace in the waters of Holy Baptism, we have God's assurance and promise that we belong to Jesus Christ, are children of God, and have the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as God's people we should abide and walk by the Spirit and not the lusts of the flesh.

-CryptoLutheran

Hebrews 7:18 and 19
(18) The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
(19) (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 9:9 and 10
(9) This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and the sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
(10) They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings [baptismos]external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" (Matthew 3:11).

We see this baptism into the Holy Spirit in Acts of the Apostles 2, Acts of the Apostles 8, Acts of the Apostles 10, and Acts of the Apostles 19. No water is mentioned as a part of this new baptism in these verses, and we see an immersion into the Spirit. In some cases, the laying on of hands took place. This is the New Baptism. It is the baptism into the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,343
26,789
Pacific Northwest
✟728,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hebrews 7:18 and 19
(18) The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
(19) (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 9:9 and 10
(9) This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and the sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
(10) They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings [baptismos]external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Context, context, context.
Washing the Hands

"Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (βαπτίσωνται). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (βαπτισμοὺς) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)" - Mark 7:1-4

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" (Matthew 3:11).

Already addressed.

We see this baptism into the Holy Spirit in Acts of the Apostles 2, Acts of the Apostles 8, Acts of the Apostles 10, and Acts of the Apostles 19.

Already addressed. No baptism with the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Acts 8 or 19. If you want to argue that laying on of hands = baptism with the Holy Spirit, you'll need to provide at least some evidence to back that claim up.

No water is mentioned as a part of this new baptism in these verses,

There is no reason to believe that when Scripture mentions Baptism, without qualification, that means anything other than Baptism. Nothing you have provided even remotely comes close to suggesting otherwise. Your arguments don't even amount to the level of being specious. You are working purely from assumption, offering no evidence.

and we see an immersion into the Spirit. In some cases, the laying on of hands took place. This is the New Baptism. It is the baptism into the Holy Spirit.

Show one place in Scripture where laying on of hands is called "baptism".

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,343
26,789
Pacific Northwest
✟728,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
They don't have to ... to prove that they are speaking about the Spirit baptism.
People are supposed to actually know that ...
when tongues occur amongst believers ...
they are receiving the H.S. baptism, or they already have it.
End of story.

Well someone apparently forgot to tell the Apostles that. Likewise, no one ever bothered to tell the disciples of the Apostles this either, since that's not mentioned anywhere in any of the writings of the ancient fathers, or the writers of the middle ages in either East or West. In fact nobody apparently felt it necessary to say anything like that until the 20th century. Now isn't that just a little odd?

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Context, context, context.
Washing the Hands

"Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (βαπτίσωνται). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (βαπτισμοὺς) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)" - Mark 7:1-4

First, the washing of hands in Mark 7:1-4 was a tradition of the Pharisees, it was never a former regulation of God.

"The former regulation is set aside
because it was weak and useless."
(Hebrews 7:18).

Second, Hebrews 7:18 is not in context to Mark 7:1-4. It's not even a cross reference.

You said:
Already addressed.

I don't believe so. We see Holy Spirit baptism is clearly the next step or stage after water baptism or John's baptism. Water baptism began to be phased out as Spirit baptism was the New Covenant form of baptism.

You said:
Already addressed. No baptism with the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Acts 8 or 19. If you want to argue that laying on of hands = baptism with the Holy Spirit, you'll need to provide at least some evidence to back that claim up.

In Acts 8, we learn about how Philip had water baptized the people of Samaria, and yet they did not receive the Holy Ghost. So John and Peter were sent out and they prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost. When John and Peter laid hands on the people of Samaria, they received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Going back to the Pentecost event in Acts 2, we learn that the people were told to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 2:38). This was clearly a fulfillment of John the Baptist's words that said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11).

This event at Pentecost of the 3,000 Jews being saved by accepting Christ and in their receiving of the Spirit also happened in a similar way with a Gentile family in Acts 10. After Cornelius and his family accepted the gospel from Peter, the Holy Ghost came upon them (Acts of the Apostles 10:38-45), and Peter remembered the words of the Lord Jesus (from Acts of the Apostles 1:5) that said,

"John indeed baptized with water;
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
(Acts of the Apostles 11:16).

Cornelius obviously received the Holy Ghost for the first time as a part of the gospel in Acts 10. Peter remembered the words of the Lord Jesus that said that John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost in relation to what happened with Cornelius and his family.

Those in Acts 8, received the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is defined as Spirit baptism if one compares Acts of the Apostles 11:14-16 and Acts of the Apostles 10:38-45, Matthew 3:11, and Acts of the Apostles 1:5.

You said:
There is no reason to believe that when Scripture mentions Baptism, without qualification, that means anything other than Baptism. Nothing you have provided even remotely comes close to suggesting otherwise. Your arguments don't even amount to the level of being specious. You are working purely from assumption, offering no evidence.

Show one place in Scripture where laying on of hands is called "baptism".

-CryptoLutheran

Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6 ties it all together. Certain disciples at Ephesus did not know of any Holy Ghost, and they were asked by whom were they baptized by. They said by John's baptism (Which is water baptism). After they were told to believe on Jesus, they were baptized in the name of Jesus, and Paul then laid his hands on them, and they received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
(Acts of the Apostles 19:5-6).​

There is no mention of how Paul placed them into the water so as to be baptized. Instead, it says they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus and then Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. Again, both John the Baptist, and Jesus both say that there is a baptism into the Holy Ghost, and this would not only include the Pentecost event, but also the Gentile family of Cornelius, as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

Water baptism began to be phased out as Spirit baptism was the New Covenant form of baptism.
This is a very controversial subject (as you know) within denominational Christianity.

Derek Prince has stated (youtube) that he believes the 3,000 mentioned in Acts 2:41 were water baptized. Do you believe these 3,000 first received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before water baptism, after water baptism or during water baptism?

The recent book by Alex Tennet (The Messiah's Baptism: Moving Beyond the Ritual Washing) supports one view that water baptim is no longer a necessary ritual in light of the NT/NC baptism of the Holy Spirit.

content

The Messiah's Baptism

On one hand is a personal account by a Pentecostal woman who began speaking in tongues immediately after arising from her baptismal immersion.

On the other hand a testimony of a Baptist who decided to get baptized a second time in his 30s, as he said his first baptism as a young teen was more of a ceremony ritual that he didn't truly understand (take to heart) its significance.


One verse that is most controversial among theologians as to it's proper interpretation of "washing of regeneration" as found in Titus 3:5 ...

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The one key verse that proponents of water baptism put forth is Colossians 2:12 ...

having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Edit: The above two teal colored accounts are not found in Tennet's book, but were first hand accounts told to me.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is a very controversial subject (as you know) within denominational Christianity.

Derek Prince has stated (youtube) that he believes the 3,000 mentioned in Acts 2:41 were water baptized. Do you believe these 3,000 first received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before water baptism or after water baptism?

The recent book by Alex Tennet (The Messiah's Baptism: Moving Beyond the Ritual Washing) supports one view that water baptim is no longer a necessary ritual in light of the NT/NC baptism of the Holy Spirit.


On one hand is a personal account by a Pentecostal woman who began speaking in tongues immediately after arising from her baptismal immersion.

On the other hand a testimony of a Baptist who decided to get baptized a second time in his 30s, as he said his first baptism as a young teen was more of a ceremony ritual that he didn't truly understand (take to heart) its significance.

One verse that is most controversial among theologians as to it's proper interpretation of "washing of regeneration" as found in Titus 3:5 ...

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The one key verse that proponents of water baptism put forth is Colossians 2:12 ...

having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

I believe the Lord wanted the disciples to baptize disciples into the Spirit as a part of the great commission, but the disciples misunderstood Jesus on what that meant. Note: This would not be the first time the disciples were confused as to what Jesus said. Also, their having the Spirit did not mean they could not make mistakes, either. Paul had to rebuke Peter for showing favoritism towards the Jews.

In other words, many of the Jewish disciples were steeped in their traditions, and water baptism (that is from the Old Law) was still very important to them. I believe God wanted to phase out water baptism in favor of Spirit baptism (Which was taught by Paul). In the beginning of the book of Acts, we see both "water baptism" and "Spirit baptism." The Messianic Jews from different regions (of different languages) were able to understand each other because of the "Spirit baptism" event. I believe Peter at this point did not know about Spirit baptism yet because he did not know of it until he recalled the words of Jesus in Acts of the Apostles 1:5 by the experience he shared with Cornelius.

14 "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts of the Apostles 11:14-16).​

This means that those 3,000 Jews who accepted Christ at Pentecost were water baptized because Peter did not know yet of what Jesus meant by being baptized into the Spirit yet. He still was not fully aware of it yet that Spirit baptism was to replace water baptism because he wanted to water baptize Cornelius and his family afterwards. He just realized what Jesus meant by Spirit baptism, but it did not sink in fully yet that Spirit baptism was to replace water baptism. Water baptism pointed to the true and real baptism (i.e. the Baptism into the Holy Spirit).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I also did not always see this topic clearly before, either.
At one time, I thought water baptism was a command in the New Testament.
I did not take a step back and look at the bigger picture at what was happening.
I did not want to see that Peter and others could have been wrong.
Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6 is what really helped me. I didn't clearly see this passage before in what it was saying. It was like a hidden passage to me. After reading it several times, I came to the conclusion that Paul was offering something different than John's water baptism. He was offering the baptism of the Spirit. This is the one true baptism (Ephesians 4:5). For Paul came not to baptize (water baptize), but to preach the gospel (Which leads to Spirit baptism or in receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
We should focus on obeying those commands that come from Jesus
and His followers.
Like so many Bible scriptures this depends on one's interpretation/implication of one's words (His followers) as compared to His Word John 1:1,14 and 1 John 1:1) from Genesis through Revelation. I believe you might first of all define His followers as the first Jewish Apostles/apostles (including Paul) who were baptized/anointed via His Spirit).

You didn't answer my previous question so will ask again in the form of multiple choice.
Do you believe the 3,000 Jews in Acts 2:41 received a special anointing via the Holy Spirit:

a. Before their water baptism
b. During their water baptism
c. Immediately after their water baptism
d. a & b
e. b & c
f. When the Lord decided it was time for a special anointing via His Spirit.
g. all of the above
h. uncertain

So the next question might be is their a difference between the baptism those 3,000 received and a supernatural anointing via the Holy Spirit OR did they all receive a supernatural anointing in Acts 2:41 due to their water baptism assuming they all glorified their Messiah (LORD) via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Sincerely interested in your perspective (without any further need/desire for theological debate).

The one thing we don't know (we have our opinions) is the first time that Paul received a supernatural anointing with "fire" (
Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16). Was it at his conversion when the scales fell off his eyes and he could see again or possibly years later after the initial indwelling of the Comforter (Holy Spirit)?

Or does a supernatural anointing with "fire" come and go (according to the need) even though the "Comforter-Advocate" (Holy Spirit) abides with
His followers forever ... possibly even before one's water baptism?

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Like so many Bible scriptures this depends on one's interpretation/implication of one's words (His followers) as compared to His Word John 1:1,14 and 1 John 1:1) from Genesis through Revelation. I believe you might first of all define His followers as the first Jewish Apostles/apostles (including Paul) who were baptized/anointed via His Spirit).

You didn't answer my previous question so will ask again in the form of multiple choice.
Do you believe the 3,000 Jews in Acts 2:41 received a special anointing via the Holy Spirit:

a. Before their water baptism
b. During their water baptism
c. Immediately after their water baptism
d. a & b
e. b & c
f. When the Lord decided it was time for a special anointing via His Spirit.
g. all of the above
h. uncertain
Well, I see "the receiving of the Holy Ghost" as more than a special anointing. I see "the receiving of the Holy Spirit" as salvation (a seal of our redemption), and as a part of the salvation process because the Spirit plays an important part in the Sanctification Process (i.e. to Live Holy). For the 3,000: It was either b. or c (Meaning: The receiving of the Spirit was either during their water baptism or quickly thereafter).

But again, Peter did not know yet that the Lord was phasing out water baptism. Peter was still confused as to what the Lord's real instructions were. God was able to still send them the Spirit baptism even when they were using a steeped in tradition of water baptism that was from the Old Covenant.

In the beginning of Acts 2, we see Jewish believers from different countries (not the 3,000) who were Spirit baptized in the fact that the Spirit came upon them and they were able to speak and understand each other in their own language. Peter had to explain to his audience
(i.e. the 3,000 Jews) that they were not drunk but this was a fulfilment or prophecy from Joel.
You said:
So the next question might be is their a difference between the baptism those 3,000 received and an anointing via the Holy Spirit OR did they all receive an anointing in Acts 2:41 due to their water baptism assuming they all glorified their Messiah (LORD) via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sincerely interested in your perspective (without any further need/desire for theological debate).

God was able to use an imperfect means (water baptism) so as to Spirit baptize them. This was the time when the Lord was phasing out water baptism. Why the Lord did not outright forbid water baptism is most likely because water baptism is a picture or symbol that points to the real baptism (i.e. Spirit baptism). Again, Peter did not begin to grasp Spirit baptism until the time of Cornelius, and even then he still water baptized because of his Jewish tradition. Sometimes the Lord lets his disciples to make a mistake so as to show them a greater reality or truth by that mistake. For example: Jesus let Peter chop off the ear of Malchus to show Peter that he was not to live by the physical sword but by the spiritual sword (i.e. the Living Word, and the communicated Word of God).

You said:
The one thing we don't know (we have our opinions) is the first time that Paul received the Spiritual anointing (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16 with "fire") via the Holy Spirit. Was it at his conversion when the scales fell off his eyes and he could see again or possibly years later after the indwelling of the Comforter (Holy Spirit)?

In Acts 9: I believe Paul received the Holy Spirit by Ananias when Ananias laid his hands on Paul. When Paul received the Spirit, his blindness had left him. Then Paul was water baptized based on Jewish traditions (and not on what the Lord wanted). But again, the Lord allowed water baptism because it was a picture or symbol showing the reality of the true baptism (i.e. Spirit baptism).

You said:
Does the anointing with "fire" come and go (according to the need) even though the "Comforter-Advocate" (Holy Spirit) remains with His followers forever?
The Holy Spirit abides with his followers forever unless they grieve the Holy Spirit with sin to a point where the Spirit would depart from them. They can then repent (confess of their sins to Jesus) and be restored back to the Lord and have spiritual life again. In some cases if the sin is really offensive, they can be judged by God and face damnation (like with Ananias and Sapphira; Note: This is a different Ananias than the one mentioned in Acts 9).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

Natsumi Lam

Preparer of the Bride
Supporter
Jan 31, 2015
1,543
682
✟120,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
While there is no denying that the Holy Spirit baptism took place in Acts 2, and in Acts 10 with signs following, the question remains is: What does Baptism of the Spirit look like today?

Have things changed?
Can we see a change in Scripture?

Today i imagine it looks like before...speaking in tongues and impartation of gifts...2 examples
 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,556.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While there is no denying that the Holy Spirit baptism took place in Acts 2, and in Acts 10 with signs following, the question remains is: What does Baptism of the Spirit look like today?

Have things changed?
Can we see a change in Scripture?

Hello. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same today. He is the same Holy Spirit after all! If you speak to someone who has experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you will not de-convince them. They've experienced the power of God. It has changed them forever.

One thing we must not forget however is the phrase used in the bible 'as the Spirit enables'. God is sovereign. Too often I think extremists and tricksters have poisoned the well with false prophecies, fraudulent healing testimonies and talking their own phrases instead of supernatural tongues. Trying to make stuff up for their own agendas. As the prophet Jeremiah said of many of the prophets in his day, they were those who shared the 'delusions of their own minds'. But Jeremiah was a true prophet. And today we will see the deluded ones with their questionable experiences, but also the true persons receiving experiences from God.

In the book of Acts, over several decades, there are a small but significant number of supernatural occurrences. There are parts/ times in the bible where the supernatural is more in evidence than others. It wasn't every single day. It isn't every single day now. God Bless :)
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hello. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same today. He is the same Holy Spirit after all! If you speak to someone who has experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you will not de-convince them. They've experienced the power of God. It has changed them forever.

One thing we must not forget however is the phrase used in the bible 'as the Spirit enables'. God is sovereign. Too often I think extremists and tricksters have poisoned the well with false prophecies, fraudulent healing testimonies and talking their own phrases instead of supernatural tongues. Trying to make stuff up for their own agendas. As the prophet Jeremiah said of many of the prophets in his day, they were those who shared the 'delusions of their own minds'. But Jeremiah was a true prophet. And today we will see the deluded ones with their questionable experiences, but also the true persons receiving experiences from God.

In the book of Acts, over several decades, there are a small but significant number of supernatural occurrences. There are parts/ times in the bible where the supernatural is more in evidence than others. It wasn't every single day. It isn't every single day now. God Bless :)

While I could be wrong, I believe the Bible leans towards Partial Cessationism (i.e. that the miraculous gifts given to believers has ceased and they were only for the early church) (See this thread here). This does not mean that the believers do not have gifts of the Spirit, they are simply not gifts of healings, or prophecies, or speaking in tongues, etc. (i.e. miraculous gifts). I believe that the saints today are given gifts such as the gift of teaching, the gift of evangelism, etc. Miracles still happen, but they are a direct result of GOD doing so and not by the hand of a believer. No prophecy (new added holy words or visions) is given anymore.

In other words, I believe the baptism seen in the early church is not the same as we see today. I could be wrong, but I currently believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens when a person accepts Christ as their Savior with a godly sorrow over their sin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply the receiving of the Spirit as a gift when a person accepts Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahkov

Active Member
Jul 18, 2019
185
59
30
Texas
✟13,852.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
While there is no denying that the Holy Spirit baptism took place in Acts 2, and in Acts 10 with signs following, the question remains is: What does Baptism of the Spirit look like today?

Have things changed?
Can we see a change in Scripture?

I don't believe things have changed nor do I believe there is anything in Scripture that implies there was a change.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Yahkov

Active Member
Jul 18, 2019
185
59
30
Texas
✟13,852.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
While I could be wrong, I believe the Bible leans towards Partial Cessationism (i.e. that the miraculous gifts given to believers has ceased and they were only for the early church) (See this thread here). This does not mean that the believers do not have gifts of the Spirit, they are simply not gifts of healings, or prophecies, or speaking in tongues, etc. (i.e. miraculous gifts). I believe that the saints today are given gifts such as the gift of teaching, the gift of evangelism, etc. Miracles still happen, but they are a direct result of GOD doing so and not by the hand of a believer. No prophecy (new added holy words or visions) is given anymore.

In other words, I believe the baptism seen in the early church is not the same as we see today. I could be wrong, but I currently believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens when a person accepts Christ as their Savior with a godly sorrow over their sin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply the receiving of the Spirit as a gift when a person accepts Christ.

If we are using 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 to come to the conclusion that the miraculous gifts of believers has ceased, we put ourselves in an awkward situation (which is not entirely bad). To say confidently they have ceased, you'd have to know when they have ceased. If we can't point to a specific time when they have, our stance is speculation at best. In my opinion, the best argument for partial cessation that points to a specific time would be at the Bible's completion. Would this be after John finished Revelation and his letters, the time of the Council of Nicea, or maybe even sometime after the invention of printing press where the Bible was made much more accessible?

When I read 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, I don't believe the point being made is that these gifts will cease sometime before we enter into eternal glory. Nor is there a specific time before this that we should look for where these miraculous gifts will pass away. I believe the point being made is the opposite, but with the focus being LOVE NEVER ENDS (incredible!). Hence, "we know in part and prophecy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." What is perfect that has come? Also, if prophecy and tongues are no longer today, what about knowledge? I read though your stance on what you believe the "perfect" is that has come. I respectively disagree with this stance. One issue I have with the "law" being what is the perfect that has come is that the law itself does not make perfection attainable. Furthermore, the law itself is not even fulfilled without Christ.

"For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." - Hebrews 7:18-19

I see though that you shared Psalm 19:7, yet I must admit I am not sure how much of that verse we can apply to argue partial cessationism. My major question I am stuck wondering, what law is this talking about? The law that David was aware of at this time? Laws that were still yet to come, implying the law was not yet complete? Or could this simply be alluding to Christ who we know revives the soul? I am not trying to provide an answer here. I am simply pondering what is said in this verse. I feel as if in the argument of partial cessationism we'd have to say a law yet to come. Simply because if the perfect was already there, what need would there be for prophecy, tongues, and knowledge in the first place? Furthermore, why would Paul say "when the perfect comes" if the "perfect" was already present?

I have no choice but to believe the law is perfect, for the Bible says so. But I also have no choice to believe that the law made nothing perfect, because the Bible also says so. By just reading through Hebrews we can see that Jesus is far better than the law.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1-4

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that it is entirely possible that we haven't seen miraculous gifts, prophecy, etc for say the last thousand years (I am not saying this is the case) but that doesn't have to necessarily mean they have ceased or passed away. Perhaps to our standard it could appear that way, but our standard doesn't form what is reality.

I also read in your stance that you said we don't read of any miraculous signs after Acts. This is no surprise since the Book of Acts is about the acts of the Apostles, whereas the epistles fall more inline with instruction and teaching. It may also come as a surprise that Paul possibly wrote a handful of his epistles during the events described in the Book of Acts. On the other hand though, we sure do read about prophecy after the events in Acts. In fact, there is an entire book about prophecy (Revelation). This brings me to my last point.

The final thing I would like to touch on that furthers the awkward situation partial cessationism runs into are the two witnesses in Revelation 11. We see that they prophesy, they can shut the sky allowing no rain to fall, they have the power to turn water into blood, and they have the power to strike the earth with every kind of plague. If you'd ask me, those are some pretty miraculous gifts. If I am to accept that prophecy has passed away, I am now in a weird state of confusion regarding these two witnesses. Let's pretend these two witnesses occurred during our lifetime and we have a lot of Christians today who believe prophecy has passed away. These same Christians are now in a very dangerous situation.

My stance on this is that prophecy, tongues, and miraculous gifts are still for today. I believe the "perfect" that Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthians 13 is the Salvation we are waiting for in Jesus Christ. From what I gather, that seems to be the safest stance.

"But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith - that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained." - Philippians 3:7-16

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."" - Revelation 21:1-4

This is where I confidently assert that prophecy, tongues, and knowing in part has ceased and passed away. But not love, for it was God's love that got us here in the first place.

(I apologize if I have misused the idea of partial cessationism in this post)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If we are using 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 to come to the conclusion that the miraculous gifts of believers has ceased, we put ourselves in an awkward situation (which is not entirely bad). To say confidently they have ceased, you'd have to know when they have ceased. If we can't point to a specific time when they have, our stance is speculation at best. In my opinion, the best argument for partial cessation that points to a specific time would be at the Bible's completion. Would this be after John finished Revelation and his letters, the time of the Council of Nicea, or maybe even sometime after the invention of printing press where the Bible was made much more accessible?

When I read 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, I don't believe the point being made is that these gifts will cease sometime before we enter into eternal glory. Nor is there a specific time before this that we should look for where these miraculous gifts will pass away. I believe the point being made is the opposite, but with the focus being LOVE NEVER ENDS (incredible!). Hence, "we know in part and prophecy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." What is perfect that has come? I read though your stance on what you believe the "perfect" is that has come. I respectively disagree with this stance. One issue I have with the "law" being what is the perfect that has come is that the law itself does not make perfection attainable. Furthermore, the law itself is not even fulfilled without Christ.

"For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." - Hebrews 7:18-19

I see though that you shared Psalm 19:7, yet I must admit I am not sure how much of that verse we can apply to argue partial cessationism. My major question I am stuck wondering, what law is this talking about? The law that David was aware of at this time? Laws that were still yet to come, implying the law was not yet complete? Or could this simply be alluding to Christ who we know revives the soul? I am not trying to provide an answer here. I am simply pondering what is said in this verse. I feel as if in the argument of partial cessationism we'd have to say a law yet to come. Simply because if the perfect was already there, what need would there be for prophecy, tongues, and knowledge in the first place? Furthermore, why would Paul say "when the perfect comes" if the "perfect" was already present? If I were to think deeper, I'd also get stuck reminding myself that not everyone in this world has access to this law, meaning there are people in this world where the "perfect" (according to a partial cessationism argument) hasn't reached. Wouldn't we have to conclude that these miraculous gifts will occur today for that reason?

I have no choice but to believe the law is perfect, for the Bible says so. But I also have no choice to believe that the law made nothing perfect, because the Bible also says so. By just reading through Hebrews we can see that Jesus is far better than the law.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1-4

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that it is entirely possible that we haven't seen miraculous gifts, prophecy, etc for say the last thousand years but that doesn't have to necessarily mean they have ceased or passed away. Perhaps to our standard it could appear that way, but our standard doesn't form what is reality.

I also read in your stance that you said we don't read of any miraculous signs after Acts. This is no surprise since the Book of Acts is about the acts of the Apostles, whereas the epistles fall more inline with instruction and teaching. On the other hand though, we sure do read about prophecy after the events in Acts. In fact, there is an entire book about prophecy (Revelation). This brings me to my last point.

The final thing I would like to touch on that furthers the awkward situation partial cessationism runs into are the two witnesses in Revelation 11. We see that they prophesy, they can shut the sky allowing no rain to fall, they have the power to turn water into blood, and they have the power to strike the earth with every kind of plague. If you'd ask me, those are some pretty miraculous gifts. If I am to accept that prophecy has passed away, I am now in a weird state of confusion regarding these two witnesses. Let's pretend these two witnesses occurred during our lifetime and we have a lot of Christians today who believe prophecy has passed away. These same Christians are now in a very dangerous situation.

My stance on this is that prophecy, tongues, and miraculous gifts are still for today. I believe the "perfect" that Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthians 13 is the Salvation we wait for in Jesus Christ. From what I gather, that seems to be the safest stance.

"But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith - that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained." - Philippians 3:7-16

(I apologize if I have misused the idea of partial cessationism in this post)

Prophecy and the other spiritual gifts ended when John finished writing down the book (scroll) of Revelation in 100 A.D. The perfect had finally come. The canon of Scripture was now complete to be spread to all. Beyond Revelation, there is no new prophecies. God spoke what He wanted us to hear with the Scriptures that would become known as the Bible.

The perfect law of liberty mentioned in James is in reference to New Covenant Law and not Old Covenant Law (Which made nothing perfect). New Covenant Law is found within the whole of the New Testament Scriptures.

We see Paul not able to work the same miracles he used to at the latter end of his life. This shows the temporal nature of the miraculous gifts. The fact we do not see believers today operating on the same level of miracles as the early church means they are most likely not in operation today. Jesus even suggested there would be a time where others would not see. He said that blessed are those who do not see and yet they believe. This means that there are going to be a time when men will not work miracles so as to see in order to believe.

As for Revelation 11:

These are OT saints, and they are not operators of the church or the bride. This is also an End Times Prophecy Fulfilment that is already mentioned in God's Word. These two witnesses are also not believers living out their faith so as to show their faithfulness to GOD (so as to be in the Kingdom), either. Also, the End Times is all about miraculous things happen. So it is not the normative operation of the church body. These were also not the normal giftings that served to confirm the Word of the New Covenant within the early church.

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20).

Also, the pattern we see in Scripture is that the first two great miracle workers (Moses and Elijah) were followed by a period of silence. It makes sense that GOD would be consistent with Jesus and His followers. In fact, this is what we see. Unless you can verify that there were miracles being done throughout history, and they are being done today. If not, this is proof that we are in a following period of silence (just like it was for Moses and Elijah).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,556.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While I could be wrong, I believe the Bible leans towards Partial Cessationism (i.e. that the miraculous gifts given to believers has ceased and they were only for the early church) (See this thread here). This does not mean that the believers do not have gifts of the Spirit, they are simply not gifts of healings, or prophecies, or speaking in tongues, etc. (i.e. miraculous gifts). I believe that the saints today are given gifts such as the gift of teaching, the gift of evangelism, etc. Miracles still happen, but they are a direct result of GOD doing so and not by the hand of a believer. No prophecy (new added holy words or visions) is given anymore.

In other words, I believe the baptism seen in the early church is not the same as we see today. I could be wrong, but I currently believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens when a person accepts Christ as their Savior with a godly sorrow over their sin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply the receiving of the Spirit as a gift when a person accepts Christ.

Hi highlighter. Thanks for your kind and thoughtful post. I would say that if there isn't an apostle present, then there won't be apostolic gifts present. However God is still sovereign and supernatural, therefore I don't think the supernatural can be written off completely.

James 5:14-15 for example talks of a prayer of faith by elders bringing healing to the sick. We still have elders today do we not? Indeed in my church (I'm in a Baptist Church) several people have been healed when the elders prayer for and anointed the person with oil.

Regarding the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I agree with you that Christians receive the Holy Spirit the moment they believe. However in Acts 2, Acts 19 believers received a second experience of the Holy Spirit. They already believed, they had already received the Holy Spirit, there was a second experience. Now this teaching can be poisoned by false teachers and extremists making exaggerated claims, but there it is.

As for prophecy, I think a large part of prophecy is a word in season. A verse or passage in the bible which God leads you to speak or share at that moment for a particular purpose. Indeed did the Lord Jesus not share from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue 'The Spirit of the Lord is now upon me', (Luke 4:16-19) this is prophecy-'this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing' God Bless :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0