The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2

Always in His Presence said:

I'm glad you like the poster and have respect for them - it has zero to do with my question.

Neither are common terms - and neither have anything to do with either my question or the subject of the thread.

Which would be:
theologoumenon
Which is: : a theological statement or concept in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine


Which is a contradiction of the definition you said you followed.

Which again has zero to do with the topic of the thread - or my inquiry.

I'm not interested (in this thread) in information on anything other than the topic of the thread - which you still have not addressed.

Congratulations - again - what does any of that have to do with the two questions I asked, or the topic of the thread?

While I offer congratulations on your education and piety - 95% of what you have posted has anything to do with the topic of the thread. I appreciate your insight - I just wish you would give it on the subject rather than pontificating on things not germane to the topic.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Please indulge me -

Doesn't theolougoumemnon mean something that cannot be supported by Holy Scripture?

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Which would be:
theologoumenon
Which is: : a theological statement or concept in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

Egads.
It seems obvious that my friend @The Liturgist speaks a language of which you are in need of interpretation.
(how's that for being on-topic? )
Earlier, in your initial question to The Liturgist you said:

You subsequently posted the formal definition, of which there's no disagreement as far as I can see.

Yet you have said that the Liturgist contradicts that formal definition in his repsonse.
To that, I say untrue. There are areas of faith where there is little in the way of dogma but those areas can not be said to have "no scriptural support."
THis took some thought but I offer as way of example:

There is very little stated as dogma in the Orthodox Church concerning eschatology beyond the lines in the Creed which states:
He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end..
.. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

To say the study of eschatology lacks Scriptural support or lacks a Scriptural basis would be false. There are a wide variety of opinions and writings and statements of faith dealing with the subject of eschatology, yet for the Orhodox that would lie squarely in the realm of theologoumenon.
Why? because many (most? perhaps all?) statements about eschatology contain human conjecture.. post, mid, Premillennialism all have varying degrees of Scriptural support but none are reflected in the dogma of the Orthodox.
Thus, those concepts are theological statements or concepts in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine of the Church.

If one is intrested, a nice article on Eschatology in Orthodoxy can be found--> here

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

No, they a 4,000 dissertation on history. And in no way answer my simple question

I’m sorry you are seemingly not able to

Click to expand...

1. Theologoumemna do not contradict Scripture, rather like doctrine, they are interpretations of Scripture.
2. The difference between Theologoumemna is that unlike Doctrine, they have not been formally endorsed by enough of the Orthodox church to be regarded as part of our dogmatic theology (the actual process by which something becomes dogma is complex since we don’t have a Pope, and worthy of a thread in its own right, for that is a rabbit hole even I won’t go down).
3. Some Theolougmemna are nonetheless extremely widely held, and as far as I am aware the interpretation I provided on speaking in tongues is the prevalent theologoumemnon on the subject, and is based on the Scripture detailing the reaction of the people to those who had received the Spirit - that these were real languages, and on an understanding of the interpreters St. Paul mentions as being translators, and based on the element of practical utility that seems to accompany the various gifts of the Spirit, all of which seem useful in and of themselves to ensure the safety and success of the Apostles and those who continue their work.
4. This includes Orthodox monastics, because people come to see Orthodox monasteries and ask the elders questions, and interact with them, thus making prominent Orthodox monks such as Elder Ephraim, memory eternal, a kind of missionary.
5. I have encountered from some members of the forum the view that Scripture only has one obvious interpretation, but this is clearly not the case; there are multiple possible interpretations of much of Scripture, which is why doctrine is of such great importance, to the extent that St. Isidore of Seville in the late 6th and early 7th century expressed a view that most traditional Christians would gravitate towards, that is summarized as “Scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading.” And we would cite 2 Peter 1:20 in support of that.

Always in His Presence said:

Well known



Notice the emphasis on they were all - Look just a could verses back (remembering the Scripture was not written in chapter and verse.


Notice - the eleven were address, but there were others in the room that made up the 'them all' - Mary, the mother of Jesus, with His brothers and 120 people in total.

Did you catch it?

How many were filled with the Holy Spirit? Them all!

Thoughts

Click to expand...

Dan Perez said:

And Elizabeth. in. Luke 1:39-45. was then THE. first filled with HOLY SPIRIT. , but Mary. it seems was NOT !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Wonderful. Now connect that to the infilling of the Holy Spirit as shown in Acts 2

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

In Greek this is pretty weird. Technically it's "baptisms of doctrines"; and there's no shortage of commentaries by those who note that the grammatical construction is peculiar, and that the plural for "baptism" is unusual; leading many to conclude that the author has in mind "washings", and in the context of the whole letter the author of Hebrews is trying to articulate the importance of moving beyond the elementary stuff which was found in Judaism (of which ritual washings or "baptisms" were common) and toward deeper things. Or that the author is being inclusive of Jewish ritual washings, John's baptism, and Christian baptism and how these are all included within the larger context of the Christian story.

I grew up Pentecostal, so I'm aware of how this passage is proof-texted to suggest that after regeneration there is a spiritual baptism, identified with the "baptism with the Holy Spirit"--a view I can no longer accept because 1) it simply isn't what the biblical texts themselves are saying and 2) it's an idea entirely foreign to the historic teaching of the Church and does not arise until modern times.

If the author of Hebrews intended to refer to the existence of two baptisms as part of Christian praxis, then this undermines the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle who writes that there is one baptism.
Given all of this, I think we should probably go with historic, scholarly commentary on this subject: The author of Hebrews is probably indicating "washings" in a broader sense, especially in a Jewish context given the nature of the epistle--to the Hebrews.

Biblically speaking "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is only identified with the unique circumstances of Pentecost; with what happened at Cornelius' house functioning as a kind of "little Pentecost" as a sign of the full inclusion of the Gentiles into the evangelistic and apostolic mission. If what happened on Pentecost was a common occurrence, then it would not have been shocking when something like it happened again at Cornelius' household, nor would Peter have to compare it to what happened as it did to them in the beginning. It's clearly a very unique thing that happened, not an ordinary repeatable experience. That's the biblical data and evidence we have, without imposing our own doctrinal views upon the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...