Does Spirit baptism still happen today by the laying on of hands?

zoidar · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Does Spirit baptism still happen today by the laying on of hands?

Acts of the Apostles 8:15-17.

Acts of the Apostles 19:1-5.

I see these passages as referring to unique events in church history.
Acts of the Apostles 8:15-17 was a situation where Simon needed to be weeded out in receiving the Spirit until his heart was officially right with God.
Acts of the Apostles 19:1-5 was a situation where the Ephesians were not even aware of the Holy Ghost, and thus they needed to receive the Spirit via by Spirit baptism by the laying on of hands.

Does somebody have other verses to support Spirit baptism by the laying on of hands after one is receives the Spirit when they first get saved?

Voted: Not sure.

How do we know baptism of the Spirit has taken place? Speaking in tongues? Tons of people speak in tongues without being born again or baptised in the Spirit. To me it feels more like a Christian can be more or less full of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure.

lsume · Feb 5, 2020

SkyWriting said:
Sure. Or anywhere.

As you know, The Truth is that God will baptize whom He Will.

sandybeloved · Feb 5, 2020

This will be a great reminder of who must we go to, who must we seek and pursue in life:
A shirt that says "Jesus, my relentless pursuit"

click this link to buy this tee: https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/7...ursuit-jesus-lover-gift-idea-?store_id=137862

Inpire people to draw to the One who matters.

Saint Steven · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
I am kind of in the middle between the two (with leanings more towards Cessationism, but I am not stating it as 100% fact because I don't want to condemn myself just in case I am wrong). While I believe that a Christian most definitely can lay hands on another believer as a way for the Spirit to empower a believer with non-miraculous gifts like teaching, evangelism, and or helping the poor, and or discernment, on the other hand, I don't think this should be labeled as the "baptism into the Holy Spirit."

I see the label or the name of the title "baptism of the Holy Spirit" defined for us by Peter in Acts 11 when he recalls the words of the Lord on being baptized into the Spirit when Cornelius and his family received the Spirit for the first time.

Some believe that the label of "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is a second event after one is already filled by the Spirit. They see this as simply the receiving of the gifts of the Spirit and empowerment (When that is not how Peter defines it).

One of the most important things I have learned about the Holy Spirit is that we can't put him in a box.

Even in John chapter three Jesus says of the Spirit, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going...” - John 3:8 --- And again in first Corinthians we find this, "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." - 1 Corinthians 12:11 --- And you mentioned the house of Cornelius. Who saw that coming?

Our tendency is to want to fit the Holy Spirit into a doctrinal box. This is like trying to bottle the wind.

My first experience with the Holy Spirit was when I was a teen. I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember the Bill Bright tract titled: Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled life? --- You may remember his other more famous tract: Have you heard of the four spiritual laws?

Anyway, this was an amazing thing, because Bill Bright had earned the respect of Evangelicals worldwide, but here he was publishing a tract about a subsequent experience to salvation.

But as a teen I could care less about all the church politics involved. I prayed the prayer believing and was filled with the Spirit, something I had never experienced before. I had received Christ when I was eight years old, so this was indeed a subsequent experience for me.

As a young adult I sought the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. This involved the laying on of hands. But the tongues didn't come right away. I struggled with that. But once they came, I had it. It was a spiritual breakthrough. It opened up a whole new level of spiritual intimacy with God that I had never known before. I highly recommend it.

Saint Steven · Feb 5, 2020

Hillsage said:
I'm not an apostle and I laid hands praying for impartation on two, a couple of months ago. Both received a flowing prayer language.

Right.
This is HOW it is done.
But we don't limit what the Spirit might do of his own authority.
The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is recognized by the results, not by the method.

1 Corinthians 12:11
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Saint Steven · Feb 5, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
there are some verses out of context that charismatics will provide for sure. I agree with you, I don’t like adding to Christ’s work on the cross.

Jesus seems to be okay with it. Maybe you should be too. Just sayin'

Acts 1:4-5
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Francis Drake · Feb 5, 2020

lsume said:
As you know, The Truth is that God will baptize whom He Will.

Except that this anything but "The Truth".
No, he pours his Spirit on those who ask or are seeking him for more.

Here's what Jesus said.-
Luke11v11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

And even in the OT
Prov1v23Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

Hillsage · Feb 5, 2020

Saint Steven said:
Right.
This is HOW it is done.
But we don't limit what the Spirit might do of his own authority.
The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is recognized by the results, not by the method.

1 Corinthians 12:11
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

I totally agree with the sovereignty of God in all things, Steve. He can skip the generally accepted protocols or patterns we see in scripture.

But, (you know me

) that particular verse you just quoted is speaking 'specifically' about the subsequent "manifestations of the Spirit" which happen after our initial receiving of His baptism of supernatural power (and prayer tongues). And what he is determining in context is this; just WHO is going to have the anointing/unction to "manifest" one of His spiritual gifts. The general church belief is that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" are 'our gifts'. They are NOT! They are His supernatural gifts/manifestations. And we as ministering spiritual priests have one hand toward God and one hand toward man. So if I lay hands on a sick person and the power from the Holy Spirit flows from HIM through me TO THE SICK person....that Holy Spirit gift/manifestation was never MINE. We are merely conduits for the power of God to be ministers of, to others needing the benefit of His gift/manifestation.

My belief is, NONE of the Corinthian 12 "gifts/manifestations" FROM the Holy Spirit are ours. The only 'gift' from Him that is ours is the gift of prayer tongues from OUR SPIRIT to pray to God with.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

HTacianas said:
I have to ask you now, are your opinions sufficient to establish doctrine?

Not at all. God is capable of helping me to see verses in new light in my journey or walk with Him. When I look at other Scripture that makes me to re-examine my previously belief, I will adjust it to conform with Scripture. In fact, just recently I learned that John 20:22 was not a time when the disciples received the Spirit yet. It was a preparation for them to receive the Spirit and a future declaration of what was to come soon for them at Pentecost.

This passage helped me to re-examine such a thing.

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 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. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us," (Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17).

This means that Peter was not referring to the receiving of the Spirit in John 20:22, but He was referring to the receiving of the Spirit at Pentecost. This was difficult for me to originally see because John 20:22 is suggestive of their receiving of the Spirit, and Peter says at Pentecost that these men are not drunk, suggesting that he was not included among them in such an event. But all of Scripture needs to be harmonized. Peter clearly is saying here in Acts 11:15-17 that he did partake of the receiving of the Spirit with everyone else and the gift of tongues.

Note: I am going back into my older posts in this thread and editing my previous posts that inferred John 20:22 was an actual reception of the Spirit (When such is not the case).

HTacianas · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Not at all. God is capable of helping me to see verses in new light in my journey or walk with Him. When I look at other Scripture that makes me to re-examine my previously belief, I will adjust it to conform with Scripture. In fact, just recently I learned that John 20:22 was not a time when the disciples received the Spirit yet. It was a preparation for them to receive the Spirit and a future declaration of what was to come soon for them at Pentecost.

This passage helped me to re-examine such a thing.

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 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. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us," (Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17).

This means that Peter was not referring to the receiving of the Spirit in John 20:22, but He was referring to the receiving of the Spirit at Pentecost. This was difficult for me to originally see because John 20:22 is suggestive of their receiving of the Spirit, and Peter says at Pentecost that these men are not drunk, suggesting that he was not included among them in such an event. But all of Scripture needs to be harmonized. Peter clearly is saying here in Acts 11:15-17 that he did partake of the receiving of the Spirit with everyone else and the gift of tongues.

Note: I am going back into my older posts in this thread and editing my previous posts that inferred John 20:22 was an actual reception of the Spirit (When such is not the case).

John 20:22 is a separate issue that we can get to some time later if you like.

But for now, as you rightly point out, these things have to be harmonized. At least to a certain extent. As with the teaching of James on faith and works vs. the misconceptions of Paul on faith alone.

But for now, as to baptism as a whole, there is water baptism for remission of sins, and there is separately baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Those have been performed in the Orthodox Church harmoniously with the new testament since the beginning and continues today.

I say that as a former protestant who once took a different view of it.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
We agree that the baptism of the Spirit is the receiving of the Spirit for the first time.
Where we disagree is the normative method by which this happens. Yes, we see in Acts 19, where Paul lays hands on a certain group of Ephesians to receive the Spirit for the first time, but this was not the normative way of accepting the Spirit. Acts 11 sets the standard of which we would see for the normative way of people receiving the Holy Spirit.

Hillsage said:
Not true. Acts 11 was the first time "the gift" of supernatural holy spirit power was imparted upon Gentiles FROM the Holy Spirit, who was the giver of "the gift". Acts 11 was no more "normative or standard" than the sovereign way it happened for the first time to the JEWS/apostles on Pentecost.
What Peter said was 'the same as the Jews first experience' was the fact that they also spoke in tongues manifesting supernatural power of the/from the Holy Spirit.
The Greek word tou gets translated as "gift of the/tou Spirit" but that no more means you got the 'person of the Holy Spirit' than "the promise of the/tou Father" means you got the Father. The promise of the Father wasn't the person of 'the Holy Spirit' the promise was 'holy spirit power FROM the Holy Spirit. IOW supernatural tongues is what they did "see and hear" in Acts 2:33

My point was not to discount Pentecost in any way. Surely the original core disciples (along with many other Jewish believers) received the Spirit for the first time, and the speaking in foreign tongues on the day of Pentecost.

The point I was trying to make is that the disciples were already saved believers prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. The disciples were not accepting Jesus Christ for the first time for their salvation at Pentecost. Acts 11, was an event where Cornelius and his family accepted Christ for the first time. I am saying that Acts 11 is a similar way of the normative way in which the Spirit baptism happens today (But tongues do not need to be present to confirm if somebody received the Spirit; For Paul asks the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" 1 Corinthians 12:30.).

You said:
LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my (tou FROM my) Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

IOW clothed with the promised gift of power upon you, coming from the Holy Spirit who was from on high.

ACT 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
The Holy Spirit is no more IN you, than he was IN Jesus. All scriptures say the Spirit of God
was UPON Jesus, never IN Him.

I see this as the Pentecost event. The core disciples (the 12) and other Jewish believers received the Holy Spirit for the first time, and they spoke in foreign tongues and they were able to understand each other. Acts 11 was the same event for the Gentiles but the key difference is that they accepted Jesus for the first time and they were not believers in Christ for a significant amount of time. So the point I want to get at here is that the original apostles were not the normative pattern of how things were to be done (Meaning, we are not told to wait to receive the Spirit by Jesus Himself).

You said:
The Samaritans in Act's 8 were saved and water baptized by Stephen.

This was actually Philip and not Stephen who preached the gospel to them and had them water baptized (See: Acts of the Apostles 8:4-13).

You said:
Then he was translated, assuming before he had a chance to minister the baptism FROM the Holy Spirit.

He was translated? What are you talking about? Are you referring to when Philip was transported to another location by the Spirit after talking with the Ethiopian eunuch?

You said:
So your misunderstanding of Act 2:38 is glaring for me. Also, there's no apostolic litmus for imparting any of the baptisms required to go on to perfection.

Acts of the Apostles 8:4-25 is the real life story involving Philip, Peter, John, Simon the sorcerer, the Samaritans, and the Holy Spirit. This story was not a normative event in how the Spirit is generally received. The reason why the Samaritans did not receive the Spirit as a part of the normative way of accepting the gospel was because Simon the sorcerer needed to be weeded out from among them because his heart was still not right with God because he tried to pay for the Spirit. No such problem existed in Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

You said:
HEB 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands,

Not sure how this relates to what you are saying. I believe Hebrews 6:1 just fine. I believe Hebrews 6:1 is referring to "foundation of repentance from dead works" as the author of Hebrews making a reference to how the Jews had sought forgiveness with the Lord over their false Pharisee religion that focused on making salvation all about works by the Torah and not by having a true faith in Jesus Christ.

These Messianic Jews were thinking about going back to the old Jewish religion so as to avoid persecution. So if they were to do that, they would be laying again the foundation of repentance (seeking forgiveness with the Lord) over their false religion that they recanted of previously.

This also means that they would have to start all over again and relearn even the principle doctrinal teachings again if they went back to the false Pharisee religion. They were not to relearn these primary doctrines again. The author of Hebrews is saying that they cannot go back to the Jewish false religion and unlearn what they have known. They cannot lay again the foundation of these principal doctrines by rejecting the faith of Jesus Christ (for a time to avoid persecution).

Der Alte · Feb 5, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
there are some verses out of context that charismatics will provide for sure. I agree with you, I don’t like adding to Christ’s work on the cross.

Vitriolic rubbish. I have posted several verses/passages in this thread show which one are supposedly out-of-context. Just to save you the trouble of searching which I doubt that you will.
…..According to three irrefutable Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud, quoted below, among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom, hades and gehenna in the NT.
…..There were different groups within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and there were different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. That there were differing beliefs does not rebut, refute, change or disprove anything in this post.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this verse would be about 700 BC +/-]

[Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT supposed bias of Christian translators. DA]

(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Gehinnom
= = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.

When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3X Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12

…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, outlined above. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that often it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as merely death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4

…..Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, why didn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity," which would only encourage and reinforce their beliefs?

GaveMeJoy · Feb 5, 2020

Der Alter said:
Vitriolic rubbish. I have posted several verses/passages in this thread show which one are supposedly out-of-context. Just to save you the trouble of searching which I doubt that you will.
…..According to three irrefutable Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud, quoted below, among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom, hades and gehenna in the NT.
…..There were different groups within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and there were different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. That there were differing beliefs does not rebut, refute, change or disprove anything in this post.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this verse would be about 700 BC +/-]
[Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT supposed bias of Christian translators. DA]

(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Gehinnom
= = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.
When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3X Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, outlined above. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that often it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as merely death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4
…..Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, why didn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity," which would only encourage and reinforce their beliefs?

I’m confused, this is a phenomenal defense of the doctrine of the existence of a real hell and eternal damnation, which I believe in completely. My reference to the OP was that there is no need for additional laying of hands for believers to be saved

GaveMeJoy · Feb 5, 2020

Saint Steven said:
Jesus seems to be okay with it. Maybe you should be too. Just sayin'

Acts 1:4-5
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Bro I’m totally cool with this reference to the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down for the first time. It was epic! Thankfully, where Paul baptized with water, christ’s death gave us a real baptism with the Holy Spirit at the point of salvation. We still do water baptisms too as a symbol of our inward change but I’m so glad we get the real one when the Holy Spirit comes at salvation. I feel like you and me chat a lot on these threads

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

HTacianas said:
John 20:22 is a separate issue that we can get to some time later if you like.

For me: My recent discovery on John 20:22 is groundbreaking.
Let all glory be unto the Lord Jesus Christ and our God for what I continue to learn.
But we can discuss it later if you like.

You said:
But for now, as you rightly point out, these things have to be harmonized. At least to a certain extent. As with the teaching of James on faith and works vs. the misconceptions of Paul on faith alone.

I am not really a traditional Protestant. I am actually a Trinitarian, Sola Scriptura non-denominational Christian. I actually believe we are saved by two processes or works of God (under the free will cooperation of the person). A believer is initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith (The Process of Justification), and after they are saved by God's grace, they then enter the second phase of salvation called the: "Sanctification Process" (Which is putting away sin, living holy, being pure of heart, and being fruitful for our Lord). A believer cannot abide in grievous unconfessed sins like hating, lusting, and lying and still be saved (while doing so). Believers need to confess and forsake sin in order to have mercy (or salvation) (Proverbs 28:13, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:3-4). This would be obedience to the commands given to us by Jesus and His followers, and we are not to seek to be justified by the 613 laws of Moses (and follow things like circumcision, the dietary laws, or the Saturday Sabbath, etc.).

You said:
But for now, as to baptism as a whole, there is water baptism for remission of sins, and there is separately baptism of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Those have been performed in the Orthodox Church harmoniously with the new testament since the beginning and continues today.

I understand that this is what they teach. But we should always be good Bereans and check everything in the Word of God to see whether those things are really so or not. I just do not see how this Orthodox statement agrees with Scripture.

First, water baptism is not for salvation. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21 baptism saves us not for the putting away the filth of the flesh (i.e. sin - see: 2 Corinthians 7:1), but baptism saves us as answering the call of having an already clean conscience before God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If water baptism was for salvation, then he would have never said this. If water baptism was for salvation Paul would have said, "I come to baptize and to preach the gospel" because in your view, they are both essential for salvation. Paul would not deny a necessary aspect of salvation. Even if baptism was to be done by somebody else, he would say, "While I did not come to baptize, you must submit to others who do baptize as a part of salvation." But Paul did not say this, either. He simply said, I come not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So a person is saved by the hearing of the gospel. Well, they are initially saved by hearing the gospel. Cornelius was initially saved without water baptism.

Second, while believers in the early church have received the Holy Spirit via by "baptism of the Holy Spirit," by the laying on of hands this was done in rare cases in the New Testament early church. Whether it goes on today in the church in rare cases that the New Testament defines is unknown. Only God knows, and those believers who have encountered such rare situations like they had done in the early church would take it by faith that such a thing is so. But the normative way of accepting the Holy Spirit (i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit) is via by believing in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and in repenting of one's sins (i.e. in seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus).

You said:
I say that as a former protestant who once took a different view of it.

I am actually opposed to traditional Protestantism that teaches Sola Fide. While we are saved initially and ultimately by God's grace through faith without works (i.e. Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism) (Ephesians 2:8) (Justification), man is also justified by works (God directed works done through the believer) and not by faith alone (James 2:24) (Sanctification). In fact, it is more than just having good works. For we see that even those who did good works in Christ's name were cast out by Jesus in Matthew 7:23. Why? Because they also worked iniquity or sin. They justified sin. Hebrews 12:14 says without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. But many today think God's grace does not teach what Titus 2:11-12 teaches. For they think they can sin and still be saved. But Jude 1:4 warns against turning God's grace into a license for immorality. So grace is not a safety net to sin on any level as many Protestants teach.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

Saint Steven said:
One of the most important things I have learned about the Holy Spirit is that we can't put him in a box.

I go by Scripture in regards to how the Spirit operates, and the Scriptures were written by men of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You said:
Even in John chapter three Jesus says of the Spirit, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going...” - John 3:8 --- And again in first Corinthians we find this, "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." - 1 Corinthians 12:11 --- And you mentioned the house of Cornelius. Who saw that coming?

Our tendency is to want to fit the Holy Spirit into a doctrinal box. This is like trying to bottle the wind.

I don't disagree with the above verses you mentioned. I also do not strive to fit God into a box, either. But His Word does need to be harmonized, and our souls do need to be taken under consideration when we look at the Bible and what other men teach these days. Jesus said narrow is the way and FEW be there that find it. So salvation in my opinion is not in the big mega churches. Not everyone teaches in line with what the Bible says; And many take a liberal approach with the Scriptures (Especially overly larged sized churches - IMO). While I am not seeking to condemn all large churches, it is just that in my experience this appears to be the case that they are not in line exactly with all of what Scripture says always. Nobody today even knows what "repentance" even means. Some think it means to believe in Jesus, and others think it means to exclusively forsake sin alone. Many are looking for an experience, but they are not seeking to truly align with all of what God's Word says.

You said:
Anyway, this was an amazing thing, because Bill Bright had earned the respect of Evangelicals worldwide, but here he was publishing a tract about a subsequent experience to salvation.

There are numerous problems with Bill Bright that you can research for yourself on the internet. Bill Bright endorses Jay Gary's new age book.
To learn more about Jay Gary: See this article here:

Part 3: The call to global oneness
(Note: I merely agree with what the author wrote against Jay Gary, and this does not mean I endorse the author's other views or beliefs).

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

zoidar said:
Voted: Not sure.

How do we know baptism of the Spirit has taken place? Speaking in tongues? Tons of people speak in tongues without being born again or baptised in the Spirit. To me it feels more like a Christian can be more or less full of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure.

Thank you for saying this. In all honesty, I am also not sure if such a thing continues today. While it certain could happen, I simply do not know if it does. For me the laying on of hands to receive the Spirit was done in rare cases and it was not the normative way of receiving the Spirit (Which is when a person first accepts Jesus and the gospel).

Now, I believe we can lay hands on other believers for different purposes (as mentioned in Scripture, see my post #17), but it is an unknown to me that believers would need to give the Spirit by the laying on of hands in rare cases where somebody has not received the Spirit yet (When they should have).

Hillsage · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
My point was not to discount Pentecost in any way. Surely the original core disciples (along with many other Jewish believers) received the Spirit for the first time, and the speaking in foreign tongues on the day of Pentecost.

The point I was trying to make is that the disciples were already saved believers prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. The disciples were not accepting Jesus Christ for the first time for their salvation at Pentecost. Acts 11, was an event where they accepted Christ for the first time. I am saying that Acts 11 is a similar way of the normative way in which the Spirit baptism happens today (But tongues do not need to be present to confirm if somebody received the Spirit).

We're good so far.

BTW, I'm not demanding that 'I'm right and you're WRONG'? I am saying we may not agree, and I give you permission to do so. And hopfully you do the same in return. For only then can "iron sharpen iron". If we adversarialy disagree then 'iron DOES NOT sharpen iron'. It throws the sparks of division.

I see this as the Pentecost event. The core disciples (the 12) and other Jewish believers received the Holy Spirit for the first time, and they spoke in foreign tongues and they were able to understand each other.

My opinion differs. The core disciples received the gift of prayer tongues for 'their spirits' FIRST. This is brought out in Acts.

ACT 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I believe this "utterance" was the prayer language of their spirits. And scripture says 'this language' is not of men "for no man understandeth" it (1Cor 14:2). And it was the "noise" of those prayer tongues, which drew the crowd of people from all the different countries who were present in "the house of the Lord" or "the temple" celebrating the feast of Pentecost. The disciples weren't at some 'house' they just rented for a 120 people. The feast was celebrated at the temple/house. And all those different people groups assembled in different places in that temple. The 'noise' of tongues got everyone's attention.

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised/phone abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Strong's Greek dict. 5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language

And it was this bestial or artificial SOUNDING language of prayer tongues from the disciple's spirits that drew the crowds. Then the "gift/manifestation of tongues" FROM the Holy Spirit was poured upon them enabling them to manifest through the disciples to speak 'not to God with their spirit's tongue', but to men in their earthly languages by the power gift from the Holy Spirit.

Acts 11 was the same event for the Gentiles but the key difference is that they accepted Jesus for the first time and they were not believers in Christ for a significant amount of time. So the point I want to get at here is that the original apostles were not the normative pattern of how things were to be done (Meaning, we are not told to wait to receive the Spirit by Jesus Himself).

Would you agree that there was no Holy Spirit power to be 'received' until Pentecost? And that's why Jesus told them to go wait for "the power/gift" to be poured out upon them FROM the Holy Spirit/giver.

This was actually Philip and not Stephen who preached the gospel to them and had them water baptized (See: Acts of the Apostles 8:4-13).

He was translated? What are you talking about? Are you referring to when Philip was transported to another location by the Spirit after talking with the Ethiopian eunuch?

Oops,

correction received.... on both 'name' and 'transport' timing.

I will have to reconsider why Phillip didn't minister the Holy Spirit baptism. I still see no scriptural mandate for it having to be 'apostolic' though. Do you?

Acts of the Apostles 8:4-25 a story involving Philip, Peter, John, Simon the sorcerer, the Samaritans, and the Holy Spirit was not a normative event in how the Spirit is generally received. The reason why the Samaritans did not receive the Spirit as a part of the normative way of accepting the gospel was because Simon the sorcerer needed to be weeded out from among them because his heart was still not right with God because he tried to pay for the Spirit. No such problem existed in Acts of the Apostles 2:38.

I feel sorry for the bad rap Simon often gets. Simon "believed and was baptized" according to scripture. I believe he was born again based on that fact. But, like everyone else in that evangelistic trip of Phillip, none had received what the people 'saw and heard' on the day of Pentecost, which was tongues...from 'the believer's spirit' and/or 'the Holy Spirit' manifestation gifts.

But Simon was such a zealous new believer he gave up his sorcery to "continue WITH Phillip" and his "signs and miracles" ministry. He did so until he saw Peter ministering the Holy Spirit to those who had been saved by Philip. Then Simon, I assume also received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And when he saw it being ministered to others by Peter, he simply did what happens today in the church. Zealous believers who pay to go to divinity school to get the degree to declare they are a pastor. And this happens whether God called them to be one or not. Did Simon still have heart issues? Yes, we all still have sin issues, addictions, bad habits after getting born again...AND even after receiving the baptism of the Spirit...right? I know I did.

I'm going to stop BH because this is just too long, not that I'm trying to avoid discussing Heb 6.

GaveMeJoy · Feb 5, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
For me: My recent discovery on John 20:22 is groundbreaking.
Let all glory be unto the Lord Jesus Christ and our God for what I continue to learn.
But we can discuss it later if you like.

I am not really a traditional Protestant. I am actually a Trinitarian, Sola Scriptura non-denominational Christian. I actually believe we are saved by two processes or works of God (under the free will cooperation of the person). A believer is initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith (The Process of Justification), and after they are saved by God's grace, they then enter the second phase of salvation called the: "Sanctification Process" (Which is putting away sin, living holy, being pure of heart, and being fruitful for our Lord). A believer cannot abide in grievous unconfessed sins like hating, lusting, and lying and still be saved (while doing so). Believers need to confess and forsake sin in order to have mercy (or salvation) (Proverbs 28:13, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:3-4). This would be obedience to the commands given to us by Jesus and His followers, and we are not to seek to be justified by the 613 laws of Moses (and follow things like circumcision, the dietary laws, or the Saturday Sabbath, etc.).

I understand that this is what they teach. But we should always be good Bereans and check everything in the Word of God to see whether those things are really so or not. I just do not see how this Orthodox statement agrees with Scripture.

First, water baptism is not for salvation. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21 baptism saves us not for the putting away the filth of the flesh (i.e. sin - see: 2 Corinthians 7:1), but baptism saves us as answering the call of having an already clean conscience before God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If water baptism was for salvation, then he would have never said this. If water baptism was for salvation Paul would have said, "I come to baptize and to preach the gospel" because in your view, they are both essential for salvation. Paul would not deny a necessary aspect of salvation. Even if baptism was to be done by somebody else, he would say, "While I did not come to baptize, you must submit to others who do baptize as a part of salvation." But Paul did not say this, either. He simply said, I come not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So a person is saved by the hearing of the gospel. Well, they are initially saved by hearing the gospel. Cornelius was initially saved without water baptism.

Second, while believers in the early church have received the Holy Spirit via by "baptism of the Holy Spirit," by the laying on of hands this was done in rare cases in the New Testament early church. Whether it goes on today in the church in rare cases that the New Testament defines is unknown. Only God knows, and those believers who have encountered such rare situations like they had done in the early church would take it by faith that such a thing is so. But the normative way of accepting the Holy Spirit (i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit) is via by believing in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and in repenting of one's sins (i.e. in seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus).

I am actually opposed to traditional Protestantism that teaches Sola Fide. While we are saved initially and ultimately by God's grace through faith without works (i.e. Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism) (Ephesians 2:8) (Justification), man is also justified by works (God directed works done through the believer) and not by faith alone (James 2:24) (Sanctification). In fact, it is more than just having good works. For we see that even those who did good works in Christ's name were cast out by Jesus in Matthew 7:23. Why? Because they also worked iniquity or sin. They justified sin. Hebrews 12:14 says without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. But many today think God's grace does not teach what Titus 2:11-12 teaches. For they think they can sin and still be saved. But Jude 1:4 warns against turning God's grace into a license for immorality. So grace is not a safety net to sin on any level as many Protestants teach.

How would you define “abiding in sin”? Because all men sin daily, “anyone who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him” are you referring to unrepentant sin as abiding? Cuz I can get behind that as a soft definition I think

Bible Highlighter · Feb 5, 2020

Hillsage said:
We're good so far. BTW, I'm not demanding that 'I'm right and you're WRONG'? I am saying we may not agree, and I give you permission to do so. And hopfully you do the same in return. For only then can "iron sharpen iron". If we adversarialy disagree then 'iron DOES NOT sharpen iron'. It throws the sparks of division.

I do not want to give you the impression that I am overly adversarial and or overly condemning. While I may respect the efforts of some street preach these days, I believe that they could do a lot more in love. My words sometimes may not convey the inflections of my speech, tone, and nor can they always reflect how I feel towards all. I believe we must pray, love, and go good towards our enemies. This includes even those in whom Christians label as false teachers these days. We must love all people, which can only come by the power of the LORD.

You said:
My opinion differs. The core disciples received the gift of prayer tongues for 'their spirits' FIRST. This is brought out in Acts.

When do you see the core disciples after Christ's resurrection (the 11 / later 12 with Matthias added) receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time?

In John 20:22?
Or in Acts of the Apostles 2?
For me: The answer lies in knowing when Christ was glorified.

For John 7:39 says

"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

Was Christ glorified when He ascended to the Father when He told Mary not to touch Him? Or was Christ glorified in His ascension before His 120 followers?

The most likely answer in light of the whole counsel of God's Word to this is that Christ was glorified when He ascended to the Father in Acts of the Apostles 1, which means that the Holy Spirit was given to His followers in Acts of the Apostles 2.

Further proof?

#1. John 15:26-27 suggests that when the Comforter comes, it will cause the disciples to bear witness of Him (i.e. to be witnesses for the Lord) (Also please see: Acts of the Apostles 1:4, and Acts of the Apostles 1:8).

#2. John 16:7-11 suggests that when the Comforter comes, it will follow that people within the world will then be convicted by the Comforter. This started to happen at Pentecost (Please see Acts of the Apostles 2:14-41).

You said:
ACT 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I believe this "utterance" was the prayer language of their spirits. And scripture says 'this language' is not of men "for no man understandeth" it (1Cor 14:2). And it was the "noise" of those prayer tongues, which drew the crowd of people from all the different countries who were present in "the house of the Lord" or "the temple" celebrating the feast of Pentecost. The disciples weren't at some 'house' they just rented for a 120 people. The feast was celebrated at the temple/house. And all those different people groups assembled in different places in that temple. The 'noise' of tongues got everyone's attention.

I believe the tongues spoken at Pentecost were real foreign languages and they were not some kind of unknown mystery language.

"Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts of the Apostles 2:7-8).

While I could be wrong, I believe most likely that 1 Corinthians 14:2 is not referring to the gibberish version of tongues that we see and hear today in many churches. This again was the speaking of a real foreign languages.

Some believe that 1 Corinthians 14:2 is in reference to speaking an angelic language in private prayer.

However, I believe this verse is talking about the misuse of tongues or publically speaking a real foreign language (i.e. tongues) towards God (without an interpreter), and it is not a private prayer in tongues behind closed doors. How so? Well, the passage says that no man understands him.

"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; "
(1 Corinthians 14:1-2).

How can a man not understand them if they are praying in tongues behind closed doors? The idea here that "no man understands him" means they are wrongfully talking to God publically around other believers without an interpreter.

You said:
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised/phone abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Strong's Greek dict. 5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language

And it was this bestial or artificial SOUNDING language of prayer tongues from the disciple's spirits that drew the crowds. Then the "gift/manifestation of tongues" FROM the Holy Spirit was poured upon them enabling them to manifest through the disciples to speak 'not to God with their spirit's tongue', but to men in their earthly languages by the power gift from the Holy Spirit.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Were they actually speaking real foreign languages or was it some kind of unknown tongue that no outside observer could listen in and truly know?

Would you agree that there was no Holy Spirit power to be 'received' until Pentecost? And that's why Jesus told them to go wait for "the power/gift" to be poured out upon them FROM the Holy Spirit/giver.

Yes, I see Pentecost also as the receiving of the Spirit for the first time (for the disciples), as well.

You said:
Oops, correction received.... on both 'name' and 'transport' timing.

No worries. It's all good.

You said:
I will have to reconsider why Phillip didn't minister the Holy Spirit baptism. I still see no scriptural mandate for it having to be 'apostolic' though. Do you?

I see it as not something in Philip's control, but it had more to do with an unusual situation where the Spirit could not operate because Simon the sorcerer's heart was not right with God. This event needed be taken care of before the witnesses of other members of the church and not just one guy in the church. This was a serious matter that needed to be resolved before other members of the body.

You said:
I feel sorry for the bad rap Simon often gets. Simon "believed and was baptized" according to scripture. I believe he was born again based on that fact. But, like everyone else in that evangelistic trip of Phillip, none had received what the people 'saw and heard' on the day of Pentecost, which was tongues...from 'the believer's spirit' and/or 'the Holy Spirit' manifestation gifts.

But Simon was such a zealous new believer he gave up his sorcery to "continue WITH Phillip" and his "signs and miracles" ministry. He did so until he saw Peter ministering the Holy Spirit to those who had been saved by Philip. Then Simon, I assume also received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And when he saw it being ministered to others by Peter, he simply did what happens today in the church. Zealous believers who pay to go to divinity school to get the degree to declare they are a pastor. And this happens whether God called them to be one or not. Did Simon still have heart issues? Yes, we all still have sin issues, addictions, bad habits after getting born again...AND even after receiving the baptism of the Spirit...right? I know I did.

I don't think it was a coincidence that the Spirit was not given initially to the Samaritans and we later find out that Simon wants to pay for the Spirit. His heart was not right with God in this instance, which shows that either:

(a) His heart was not full committed to believing in a pure way.
(b) He would do something that would be very serious and if he had the Spirit and thought like that, it could have possibly led to his own condemnation.

Anyways, I don't think we can treat Acts of the Apostles 8:4-25 and apply it as a normative way of how the Spirit operates. This to me was a very unique situation. Clearly the Spirit was not given right away as a result of what Simon did later on.

You said:
I'm going to stop BH because this is just too long, not that I'm trying to avoid discussing Heb 6.

I understand.

Blessings to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ today.

Does Spirit baptism still happen today by the laying on of hands?

Does Spirit baptism still happen today by the laying on of hands?

Yes.

No.

Not sure.

Sometimes. It depends on the situation.

Other (Please explain).

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Well-Known Member

New Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Returning adventurer.

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads