According to Scripture, who can pray to bestow the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ?

[tomana]

..........

 

[AHJE]

I would like to ask a few questions about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the controversy amongst different denominations, as to whether or not it is for Christian converts today. I will be referring to Acts 8:5-25

Here we find Philip the evangelist preaching the Word in Samaria accompanied by miracles and signs, casting out unclean spirits, healings, etc. Many believed and were baptized by Philip into the name of Jesus Christ. These believers, however, did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles John and Peter came from Jerusalem to pray and then to lay hands on them.

In particular, I refer to Acts 8:14,15

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Samaria had received the word of God (verse 14) and they were already water baptized (verse 12) before Peter and John arrived. It is taught by many denominations, that water baptism is for those who have been regenerated of heart, born again, not for those who are not yet saved. So, this Acts 8 passage would seem to confirm that the Holy Spirit falling on the Samaritan converts was a second, separate occurrence. However, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle, for this Holy Spirit baptism to occur, at least, in this particular case.

Here are my questions:

- Why didn't Philip pray and lay hands on the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit but rather, they had to wait for the apostles to arrive?

- Since, in Acts 8, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle (not a pastor, evangelist, etc) to bestow the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, how can the Baptism of the Holy Spirit still be bestowed today by anyone other than an apostle?

If I'm not mistaken, every Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is mentioned in the New Testament always included the presence of one or more of the twelve apostles, though I might be mistaken here for I am still not learned in many areas of NT scripture. So I will venture to ask one more question if I may:

- Is there even one occurrence mentioned in the NT, where the Spirit fell on the converts, without there being any mention of an apostle being present with them at that time?

Thanks in advance, for any replies you might give.

Hi Tomana,

Peace be with you!

The question that you raise concerning Acts 8 is not referring to any baptism but rather the reception of the FULLNESS of the Holy Spirit which usually comes after the Baptism instituted by Jesus (which gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit and which includes water).

This laying on of hands by the Apostles, which confers the fullness of the Holy Spirit, is today called Holy Confirmation. This is the Sacred Anointing that seals a person with the Holy Spirit and empowers him to walk as a mature Christian and to give a bold witness for his faith or in defense of the Gospel of Christ even unto death. Oil is used usually and the laying on of hands is usually administered by a Successor to the Apostles (a Bishop).

Holy Confirmation is a Sacrament (an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace) like Baptism and Holy Communion. Jesus instituted 7 Sacraments. Holy Confirmation is 1 of the 7.

God bless you.

 

[tomana]

Moderator, please close this thread. I started it in another section. Thanks

 

[Veritas238]

I ask the following to Pentecostal / Charismatic / Messianic only

I would like to ask a few questions about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the controversy as to whether or not it is for Christian converts today. I will be referring to Acts 8:5-25

Here we find Philip the evangelist preaching the Word in Samaria accompanied by miracles and signs, casting out unclean spirits, healings, etc. Many believed and were baptized by Philip into the name of Jesus Christ. These believers, however, did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles John and Peter came from Jerusalem to pray and then to lay hands on them.

In particular, I refer to Acts 8:14,15

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Samaria had received the word of God (verse 14) and they were already water baptized (verse 12) before Peter and John arrived. It is taught by many denominations, that water baptism is for those who have been regenerated of heart, born again, not for those who are not yet saved. So, this Acts 8 passage would seem to confirm that the Holy Spirit falling on the Samaritan converts was a second, separate occurrence. However, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle, for this Holy Spirit baptism to occur, at least, in this particular case.

Here are my questions:

- Why didn't Philip pray and lay hands on the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit but rather, they had to wait for the apostles to arrive?

- Since, in Acts 8, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle (not a pastor, evangelist, etc) to bestow the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, how can the Baptism of the Holy Spirit still be bestowed today by anyone other than an apostle?

If I'm not mistaken, every Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is mentioned in the New Testament always included the presence of one or more of the twelve apostles, though I might be mistaken here for I am still not learned in many areas of NT scripture. So I will venture to ask one more question if I may:

- Is there even one occurrence mentioned in the NT, where the Spirit fell on the converts, without there being any mention of an apostle being present with them at that time?

Thanks in advance, for any replies you might give.

Neither the book of Acts or any other book in the bible speaks of a second blessing, or a baptism of the Spirit that is separate from the infilling. They are one and the same. Acts 2 fulfilled the prophesy of Joel which states that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. The experience they received in Acts 2 is the same experience the gentiles received in Acts 10, as confirmed in Acts 11.

I do believe Phillip prayed that they would receive the Spirit, but I dont believe their hearts were ready for it. I believe this because Christ is the one, and the only one who gives the SPirit. Phillip more than likely laid his hands on them, because earlier in the chapter it says that many of them were healed... and as we see was common with Christ and the early church, that people who needed healed had someone lay their hands on them... although this is not always the case.

Every baptism of the Spirit in acts does included one of Christ's disciples... but this is not unordinary... as they were the ones that preached the word to the people. Please understand that man does not give or bestow the gift of the spirit... jesus Christ himself is the only one that can baptize anyone with the Spirit. However, Christ can use the laying on of hands to administer the gift... but man does not give it. No where in the bible does it say that someone must lay hands on another to receive the Spirit... and in Acts 10 no one laid their hands on them and they received the Spirit and spoke with tongues, and it was not a secondary blessing.

 

[greatdivide46]

Neither the book of Acts or any other book in the bible speaks of a second blessing, or a baptism of the Spirit that is separate from the infilling. They are one and the same. Acts 2 fulfilled the prophesy of Joel which states that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. The experience they received in Acts 2 is the same experience the gentiles received in Acts 10, as confirmed in Acts 11.

I disagree. What you refer to as the "infilling" of the Holy Spirit is never referred to, in Scripture, as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe they are two different events and only one of them is a baptism.

I do believe Phillip prayed that they would receive the Spirit, but I dont believe their hearts were ready for it. I believe this because Christ is the one, and the only one who gives the SPirit. Phillip more than likely laid his hands on them, because earlier in the chapter it says that many of them were healed... and as we see was common with Christ and the early church, that people who needed healed had someone lay their hands on them... although this is not always the case.

You are making an assumption that Philip prayed that they would receive the Spirit and that their hearts weren't ready for it. My assumption would be, based on Scripture, is that Philip knew they received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized in water, therefore would not need to pray that they would receive the Spirit.

Every baptism of the Spirit in acts does included one of Christ's disciples... but this is not unordinary... as they were the ones that preached the word to the people. Please understand that man does not give or bestow the gift of the spirit... jesus Christ himself is the only one that can baptize anyone with the Spirit. However, Christ can use the laying on of hands to administer the gift... but man does not give it. No where in the bible does it say that someone must lay hands on another to receive the Spirit... and in Acts 10 no one laid their hands on them and they received the Spirit and spoke with tongues, and it was not a secondary blessing.

I agree, except that what I see in Scripture is that only the Apostles' laying on of hands ever resulting in anything obviously miraculous. Philip, not being one of the apostles, could not do this and have the same results.

 

[wordsoflife]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is for everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Sometimes the Holy Spirit simply fell on those who heard the word. Other times the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands.

 

[greatdivide46]

And the Holy Spirit falling on someone or someone receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Certainly it's a work of the Holy Spirit and a real event, but it's not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tangible]

And the Holy Spirit falling on someone or someone receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Certainly it's a work of the Holy Spirit and a real event, but it's not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed. There is one baptism: a water-and-Spirit baptism.

 

[wordsoflife]

And the Holy Spirit falling on someone or someone receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Certainly it's a work of the Holy Spirit and a real event, but it's not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit falls on you then you are immersed in the Spirit. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[greatdivide46]

If the Holy Spirit falls on you then you are immersed in the Spirit. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, if the Holy Spirit falls on you I suppose you could say you are immersed in the Spirit, but that's certainly not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit results in one being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, not in the Holy Spirit falling on one or being poured out on one.

 

[wordsoflife]

Yes, if the Holy Spirit falls on you I suppose you could say you are immersed in the Spirit, but that's certainly not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit results in one being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, not in the Holy Spirit falling on one or being poured out on one.

The word "baptize" means to immerse. If the Holy Spirit falls on you and you are filled with and immersed in the Spirit, then you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

 

[greatdivide46]

The word "baptize" means to immerse. If the Holy Spirit falls on you and you are filled with and immersed in the Spirit, then you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Yes, baptize does mean immerse, however, falling on does not equal being filled and immersed. If I fall on the floor, the floor is not filled with me nor immersed in me.

 

[wordsoflife]

Yes, baptize does mean immerse, however, falling on does not equal being filled and immersed. If I fall on the floor, the floor is not filled with me nor immersed in me.

You're wrong and that's a terrible analogy. When the Spirit falls on you then you are covered with and immersed in the Holy Ghost thus you are baptized into the Spirit.

 

[greatdivide46]

It's only a terrible analogy because it so effectively points out the error of your understanding of what "fall on" means. The Holy Spirit falling on someone does not equal the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can fall on someone multiple times but the baptism of the Holy Spirit only occurs once in the life of a believer.

 

[Veritas238]

I disagree. What you refer to as the "infilling" of the Holy Spirit is never referred to, in Scripture, as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe they are two different events and only one of them is a baptism.

I believe that being "baptized," "filled," "indwelt," "Fell on," "Gift," "Received," Poured out," "Promise," are all the same thing. I can not remember ever in the book of Acts, any other epistle using the term "indwell," but I could be wrong.

On the day of Pentecost the 120 in the upper room received the Out pouring of the Holy Spirit, that Christ promised. This was also the beginning of the prophecy of Joel, saying that God would pour out His spirit upon ALL flesh. So I do not see a difference in the infilling and the baptism, or the outpouring of God's Spirit... especially if the indwelling is not the same as the out pouring, because then the prophecy of Joel is not true if not all Christians have received the out pouring.

In Acts 10 at the house of Cornelius, an angel told Cornelius to call for Peter, that he and his house would be saved. And then the bible records the Spirit falling on them as they heard the preaching. And then In Acts 11, Peter identified what happened as the baptism of the Spirit... the exact same thing that happened on the day of Pentecost, which was also associated with the out pouring of the Spirit by the Prophecy of Joel. So, I see it very hard to distinguish a difference between the infilling and the baptism or the outpouring. They all seem to be connected, and one in the same.

You are making an assumption that Philip prayed that they would receive the Spirit and that their hearts weren't ready for it. My assumption would be, based on Scripture, is that Philip knew they received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized in water, therefore would not need to pray that they would receive the Spirit.

What does scripture say without making assumptions? It says that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of them. This is the same terminology that is used in Acts 10 with the gentiles, and also is linked with the outpouring of the Spirit from the Day of Pentecost, on which they were baptized. All of the terms are interconnected and have the same meaning. The bible doesn't say they were indwelt. It says the Holy Spirit had not fallen on them, meaning they had not be baptized with the Spirit. Meaning that The Spirit was not poured out upon them, and that they had not received the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel that states"...I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Where do we find specific teaching on the separation of the infilling and baptism of the Spirit? How does the infilling or indwelling become the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel when different language is used... yet when the same language is used as the prophecy of Joel... somehow it is not the fulfillment?

I agree, except that what I see in Scripture is that only the Apostles' laying on of hands ever resulting in anything obviously miraculous. Philip, not being one of the apostles, could not do this and have the same results.

This is what you assume. As we see in in the epistles, Paul teaches for others to pray for the sick, and they will be healed, others being people who are not apostles. Sure, the bible does not specifically say that Phillip laid his hands upon them, but it is not unreasonable to assume so.

In Acts 10 we see the Holy Spirit being given without the laying on of hands.

 

[wordsoflife]

I believe that being "baptized," "filled," "indwelt," "Fell on," "Gift," "Received," Poured out," "Promise," are all the same thing.

and I agree

 

[greatdivide46]

I believe that being "baptized," "filled," "indwelt," "Fell on," "Gift," "Received," Poured out," "Promise," are all the same thing. I can not remember ever in the book of Acts, any other epistle using the term "indwell," but I could be wrong.

I disagree that all the terms you listed refer to the same event in the life of a believer. You could be right about "indwelt." The idea of being "indwelt" comes from Romans 8:11.

On the day of Pentecost the 120 in the upper room received the Out pouring of the Holy Spirit, that Christ promised. This was also the beginning of the prophecy of Joel, saying that God would pour out His spirit upon ALL flesh. So I do not see a difference in the infilling and the baptism, or the outpouring of God's Spirit... especially if the indwelling is not the same as the out pouring, because then the prophecy of Joel is not true if not all Christians have received the out pouring.

Yes, theyreceived the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Yes, it was also a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, saying that God would pour out His Spirit upon ALL flesh (note, ALL flesh, not just believers). So, I see a difference between the infilling and the outpouring of God's Spirit. The outpouring is upon ALL flesh, the infilling is only for believers.

In Acts 10 at the house of Cornelius, an angel told Cornelius to call for Peter, that he and his house would be saved. And then the bible records the Spirit falling on them as they heard the preaching. And then In Acts 11, Peter identified what happened as the baptism of the Spirit... the exact same thing that happened on the day of Pentecost, which was also associated with the out pouring of the Spirit by the Prophecy of Joel. So, I see it very hard to distinguish a difference between the infilling and the baptism or the outpouring. They all seem to be connected, and one in the same.

They may be connected but they are not the same thing. I agree that what happened a Cornelius' house is the same thing that happened on the day of Pentecost. They received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit when they spoke in tongues and they received the infilling of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized. Two different events.

What does scripture say without making assumptions? It says that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of them. This is the same terminology that is used in Acts 10 with the gentiles, and also is linked with the outpouring of the Spirit from the Day of Pentecost, on which they were baptized. All of the terms are interconnected and have the same meaning. The bible doesn't say they were indwelt. It says the Holy Spirit had not fallen on them, meaning they had not be baptized with the Spirit. Meaning that The Spirit was not poured out upon them, and that they had not received the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel that states"...I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Where do we find specific teaching on the separation of the infilling and baptism of the Spirit? How does the infilling or indwelling become the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel when different language is used... yet when the same language is used as the prophecy of Joel... somehow it is not the fulfillment?

I think outpouring and fallen upon probably refer to the same event -- speaking in tongues. That's not the same thing as the infilling of the Holy Spirit which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is what you assume. As we see in in the epistles, Paul teaches for others to pray for the sick, and they will be healed, others being people who are not apostles. Sure, the bible does not specifically say that Phillip laid his hands upon them, but it is not unreasonable to assume so.

There's a difference between praying for the sick and them being healed and laying hands on the sick for healing. Only the apostles were granted the power of laying on of hands for miracles to occur. Others have to rely on prayer.

In Acts 10 we see the Holy Spirit being given without the laying on of hands.

Yes, He was!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Ignoring all the rhetoric, and focusing on the present,

The Holy Spirit fell on, and Baptized students, Priests, Nuns, and Visitors at Notre Dame University starting in 1966 and continuing in power for several years. Pope JP2 in 1979 said “I am convinced that this movement is a sign of the Spirit’s action . . . a very important component in the total renewal of the Church.”

No "Apostle" was present. just Catholic clergy, and lay folks.

SO NO the presence of an "Apostle" is NOT required - the Holy Spirit HAS NO NEED of OUR help in any of that, but he ALLOWS US to sometimes be there to minister to others.

In Cornelius' house, Peter was there, but Nobody laid hands on anybody - in fact the Spirit apparently interrupted Pete's message to Baptize 'em in the Holy Spirit - tongues and all.

I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues and all, during a worship time at an FGBMFI dinner meeting with nobody even around, and nobody praying or seeking the baptism. It just happened.

SO NO, laying on of hands IS NOT necessarily required.

And ANYBODY can pray for anybody else. ALL CHRISTIANS have the same access to The Holy Spirit, and to Father God - in the name of Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well according to Scripture:

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be with you." - John 14:16-17

It is the Father who sends the Spirit, and one could also argue that Son in concert with the Father as well.

As St. Luke records in the Acts,

"...wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" - Acts 1:4-5

It is the Father who sends the Spirit, it is Christ the Son who baptized His Church with the Spirit.

The idea that what transpired on Pentecost was to be a regulative, normative procedure or experience which every Christian individually partakes in is nothing Scripture indicates. Rather, Scripture indicates Pentecost as the "Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire" first mentioned by St. John the Baptist. This outpouring of the Spirit upon the whole Church was the initiatory moment, the birth, of the Church and signalling the time had come to go out to all nations preaching the Gospel of God's kingdom. The Acts follows the pattern established by Jesus just prior to His ascension in the first chapter, Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then the whole world. It began in Jerusalem on Pentecost, spreading out to the rest of Judea. Then we see the Samaritans brought in, those estranged by hundreds of years from the fellowship of God with a sort of mini-Pentecost, and likewise we come to Cornelius and another mini-Pentecost. These moments represent the whole unfolding of the Divine mission of the Church which is recounted by St. Peter quoting the Prophet Joel on Pentecost, that "in the Last Days" God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire isn't a private, spiritual experience; it's an objective act of the Trinity ushering forth the kingdom mission of the Church in its preaching of the Gospel to all men.

Christ is the baptizer with the Spirit, and it was a once-and-for all objective work on Pentecost. Now that Pentecostal reality is for each and every one of us, and we enter into it by the gracious work of God who imparts faith to us, justifying us, making us members of Christ's Church and Body through the Means of His Gospel Word and Sacraments. When we were joined to the water, and the Word came to us, "..baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" we received all the indelible promises of God in Christ. We received the Holy Spirit, we were made members of Christ, joint-heirs with Christ, children of God the Father; we were freely justified by the unconditional grace and mercy of God, we became united to the Crucified Jesus and if dying with Him in His death we also share in the newness of life in His resurrection--and our own hope that on the Last Day we shall be raised up.

All the promises of the Gospel are ours by the power of the Gospel that was preached to us, and by these we share in the Covenant Promises of God poured out objectively, once and for all, on Pentecost for the Church. Pentecost is the solemn promise to the Church that God is with us, the Paraclete came and presently dwells with and within us--the seal of Christ's victory over death that saved and saves us. We have been sealed--chrismated--with the Spirit in Baptism. This is why St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12, can write that we have all been baptized in the same Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CGL1023]

I ask the following to Pentecostal / Charismatic / Messianic only

I would like to ask a few questions about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the controversy as to whether or not it is for Christian converts today. I will be referring to Acts 8:5-25

Here we find Philip the evangelist preaching the Word in Samaria accompanied by miracles and signs, casting out unclean spirits, healings, etc. Many believed and were baptized by Philip into the name of Jesus Christ. These believers, however, did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles John and Peter came from Jerusalem to pray and then to lay hands on them.

In particular, I refer to Acts 8:14,15

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Samaria had received the word of God (verse 14) and they were already water baptized (verse 12) before Peter and John arrived. It is taught by many denominations, that water baptism is for those who have been regenerated of heart, born again, not for those who are not yet saved. So, this Acts 8 passage would seem to confirm that the Holy Spirit falling on the Samaritan converts was a second, separate occurrence. However, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle, for this Holy Spirit baptism to occur, at least, in this particular case.

Here are my questions:

- Why didn't Philip pray and lay hands on the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit but rather, they had to wait for the apostles to arrive?

I asked the same question. I believe that this Phillip, whom you designate as an evangelist, was not Phillip the Apostle but Phillip the deacon (one of the seven helpers of Acts 6:5). I was very surprised to discover this fact that I first ran across using google.

I will show later that in receiving the Holy Spirit, an apostle need not be involved.

- Since, in Acts 8, it took the laying on of hands by an apostle (not a pastor, evangelist, etc) to bestow the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, how can the Baptism of the Holy Spirit still be bestowed today by anyone other than an apostle?

If I'm not mistaken, every Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is mentioned in the New Testament always included the presence of one or more of the twelve apostles, though I might be mistaken here for I am still not learned in many areas of NT scripture. So I will venture to ask one more question if I may:

- Is there even one occurrence mentioned in the NT, where the Spirit fell on the converts, without there being any mention of an apostle being present with them at that time?

We find one such occurrence in Acts 10:42-48. (v44"...the Holy Spirit fell on all who were listening to Peter's message") at the house of Cornelius and appears to have been a spontaneous event, inspired by Peter's preaching.Peter then permitted water baptism to go forward seeing that, V47, the gentiles had already received the Holy Spirit.

Luke 11:13 declares that the Father will give the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks? And in V9, the discussion had included 'ask, seek, knock', and receiving the Holy Spirit involved asking the Father.

Personally, I asked to receive the Holy Spirit in this manner. I believe that if I have been saved by asking Jesus to save me, then I have received the Holy Spirit by asking the Holy Spirit to reside in my body as His temple/dwelling place, to never leave me nor forsake me.

As to a requirement for involving an apostle to receive the Holy Spirit, we see in Acts 9:10-21 that Saul received the Holy Spirit thru the laying on of hands from Ananias, who was declared to be a disciple (a student).


Thanks in advance, for any replies you might give.

.