Baptism Of The Holy Spirit.

[Teekz]

The Acts passages aren't about the work of the Spirit in salvation.

Paul is pretty clear in Romans 10:9, 10 . . . all they need is a profession of Christ as Lord and a conviction of the death burial and resurrection. Then the Holy Spirit enters EVERY believer. This is the work of salvation.
Acts refers to the work of empowerment . . . as you refer to.

Yes what paul was talking about is the death and resurrection of the BODY.. when we accept christ as our saviour we are dead to sin and alive in him... thats through the baptizim of water, which is given by man. The holy spirit can not be recieved upon will, or be given by man, The father sends it to us.

[BIBLE](John 14:16,17). The world cannot receive the holy Spirit. jesus told his disciples that they knew the Holy Spirit for he was with them and would be in them. The world can receive Jesus as Saviour and be born again, but only a believer(one who has already made Hesus Lord) can recieve the indwelling of the spirit. [/BIBLE]

It's a process in which we recieve the Holy spirit, first of all you don't recieve it automatically at re-birth (born again), it's a process thats why believers went to each other in the bible and asked each other "have you recieved the spirt yet"...

[BIBLE]John 20:21-22 Again Jesus said, "peace be with you! As the father has sent me, i am sending you" And with that he breathed on them and said, "recieive the Holy Spirit".[/BIBLE]

They diciples did not recieve the spirit at that time, they recieved a PART of it, but teh full spirit will come unto them at pentacost, in the city which they were told to go and wait, but what i'm trying to say, when we are born again first what happens is OUR spirit (which was breathed into us at creation) gets renewed, you know that good voice you had when u were still a sinner, the side that tells you not to do good, thats our spirit which god breathed unto us, but through time we tend to ignore it and that damages our spirit, but when born again that spirit we had is renewed, and we recieve A PART of the Holy ghost, it is us to go foward and ask god to fully annoint us with his spirit, it's a journey, through trials, tests, and growth. One thing we must understand, it's completly free to coem to christ (salvation is free), but it COSTS to follow him, we are all given life, and the same opportunites, it just depends on the person to use the new life they are given to go beyond. Religion, listening to man instead of god, sleeping in this critical time, has made us sleep, we have set limits for our growth, The spirit comes to reveal ALL truths, but no one wants to go after that truth, there are different levels in this spiritual walk, religion keeps most beleivers on a weak level so when the anti christ comes they will be easy to defeat due to lack of faith, and there roots not digging deep into Gods word

 

[Koey]

The biggest problem with some modern theologies is that they are existentialist in the sense that if something exists, it is often accepted, whether or not it actually squares with scripture. Some modern practices actually come from sources outside Christianity. For instance, name-it-say-it is from witchcraft and many other phenomena are from eastern and African religions. Comparing certain practices with the Bible and these other religions, one cannot help but observe how little of these practices are in Scripture and how much of them are in things like Kundalini Yoga, Sathra Sai, Chi, African tribal religions and even native Inuit religions.

Am I saying that such people are not Christians? No, definitely not. There are some really great Christians in some of these churches. Many are not the fad-chasers or guru-followers.

The solution here is the same for any other branch of Christian theology, and all branches have gotten off track by overemphasizing non-essentials. Simply focus on what Jesus taught as the main things. After all, it is Christ-ianity we are discussing. When a televangelist or other guru tells you to do this or that thing which neither Christ nor the apostles told you to do, treat it with great suspicion. The same thing applies to every other branch of Christianity as well.

 

[Gyorg]

The Acts passages aren't about the work of the Spirit in salvation.

Would you explain further?

Paul is pretty clear in Romans 10:9, 10 . . . all they need is a profession of Christ as Lord and a conviction of the death burial and resurrection. Then the Holy Spirit enters EVERY believer. This is the work of salvation.

Within verse 9 according to the KJV: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe..."

By Strong's Concordance "shalt believe" takes on this meaning:
G4100
πιστεύω
pisteuō
pist-yoo'-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.


Now with a more established ground on precise meaning; what is it according to the Bible to believe?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Would you explain further?

Within verse 9 according to the KJV: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe..."

By Strong's Concordance "shalt believe" takes on this meaning:
G4100
πιστεύω
pisteuō
pist-yoo'-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.


Now with a more established ground on precise meaning; what is it according to the Bible to believe?

Ok . . . Paul lists belief/faith and confession as the keys to salvation . . . pretty clear.

No mention of tongues . . . no mention of prophecy . . . ONLY faith and confession.

Consequently these are the requirements of baptism as well . . . a profession/confession of faith.

In Romans 8 Paul is pretty clear that it is the presence of the Spirit which confirms that this has actually taken place (salvation) . . . again no mention of tongues or the charismata.

In Acts we see several come to faith . . . yet Luke only associates the activity of the empowerment ministry of the Spirit (Baptism in the Spirit) with SOME and not all.

He also leaves for us a clear distinction between his view and Paul's view in Acts 8. Had Paul written Acts 8 he would have spoken of the advent of the Spirit in verses 12 & 13 . . . here is where the people believed (faith) and confessed (profession/confession . . . first by their mouths and then by their being baptized) . . . according to Paul this is where they become "regenerate."

Yet Luke pens Acts 8 . . . and his perspective attributes the advent of the Spirit in the laying on of hands by Peter and John.

So . . . either the Bible is in contradiction with itself . . . which I am not willing to say (and I dont think you are either) . . . OR the two biblical authors are speaking about two distinct ministries of the Spirit . . . yet highly complementary perspectives.

 

[Koey]

"Consequently these are the requirements of baptism as well"

A bit of a leap in logic there. "Requirements" of baptism is not even a phrase in the Bible. It is your denomination's language, not the Bible's. I recommend that we stick to biblical phraseology and not denominational. That way we don't get off track.

"Luke only associates the activity of the empowerment ministry of the Spirit (Baptism in the Spirit)"

Again "empowerment ministry" is a denominational interpretation, not a plain statement of scripture. When we use biblical language, we ovecome the division between us, and we also avoid the many urban myths and legends that surround modern Christianity, many of which are not of Christian origin at all.

"here is where the people believed (faith) and confessed "

Here you are coming closer, but there is still the hint of the formula idea in some churches, that a person must make a speech of confession at their baptism ceremony. That is not what this means at all.

"Acts 8 . . . attributes the advent of the Spirit in the laying on of hands by Peter and John"

That is true, but you are making this a formula. It is not. It is a testimonial of what happened once. The Holy Spirit was given pre-baptism in another biblical example, and Peter then suggested that they be baptized. God can give the Holy Spirit whenever he wants. He does not dance to our little formulas.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hmmm . . . Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible . . . yet I am sure that you use it and affirm it . . . neither is hypostatic union . . . yet it is a supported (Scripturally speaking) and integral to our understanding of salvation.

I don't belong to a denomination . . . although I will admit it is positional jargon. Yet I don't see anything wrong with this. Jesus never used the term "justification" the way that Paul did. Yet Paul imbued the term with such great theological meaning that it became his own positional jargon.

My point in my conversation with Gyorg, is that we see that the Spirit is portrayed as being involved intimately in the salvation process . . . yet also is depicted as being the prime factor in empowering believers . . . and that these two different pictures cannot be wed into one . . . as the Oneness do.

There is a history to my statements.

 

[Gyorg]

Ok . . . Paul lists belief/faith and confession as the keys to salvation . . . pretty clear.

No mention of tongues . . . no mention of prophecy . . . ONLY faith and confession.

I understand this. I'm asking for a Biblical definition of "believe." Specifically what will follow those who do.

Consequently these are the requirements of baptism as well . . . a profession/confession of faith.

The baptism itself would be the confession of faith, no?

In Romans 8 Paul is pretty clear that it is the presence of the Spirit which confirms that this has actually taken place (salvation) . . . again no mention of tongues or the charismata.

Ok.

In Acts we see several come to faith . . . yet Luke only associates the activity of the empowerment ministry of the Spirit (Baptism in the Spirit) with SOME and not all.

Where?

He also leaves for us a clear distinction between his view and Paul's view in Acts 8. Had Paul written Acts 8 he would have spoken of the advent of the Spirit in verses 12 & 13 . . . here is where the people believed (faith) and confessed (profession/confession . . . first by their mouths and then by their being baptized) . . . according to Paul this is where they become "regenerate."

Deductive analysis please. With the use of concerned material.

Yet Luke pens Acts 8 . . . and his perspective attributes the advent of the Spirit in the laying on of hands by Peter and John.

Ok.

So . . . either the Bible is in contradiction with itself . . . which I am not willing to say (and I dont think you are either) . . . OR the two biblical authors are speaking about two distinct ministries of the Spirit . . . yet highly complementary perspectives.

I'm not so certain just yet.

 

[Gyorg]

Well. I seemed to have hit a wall. I was referring to Mark 16:16-18 concerning the signs following those who believe. However, within Romans 10:9,10 and Acts 8:12,13 the same Greek translate pisteuō [believe] is used.
While Romans 10:9,10 do not pose a problem according to my interpretation of Mark 16:16-18; Acts 8:12,13 does... I'll have to do some research concerning this one .

Those in Acts 8:12,13 believed in the like Jesus referenced the signs which would follow those who do, however, the two situates do not match... Yikes.

Well, those signs did follow, with Peter and John arriving. Hm. But it wasn't at the initial belief.

 

[Koey]

Hmmm . . . Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible...My point in my conversation with Gyorg, is that we see that the Spirit is portrayed as being involved intimately in the salvation process...

Of course, but those are universal. Some of the statements that you used are from a particular Pentecostal/charismatic bent shall I say. They are not universal. They brand you as a particular kind of Christian, and as is often the case with charismatic terms, they tend towards urban legend rather than biblical fact.

Example: My friends who are heavily influenced by mostly Pentecostal televangelists often use terms like "that was real annointed preaching." Such pop use of the word anointed is different than the biblical use. In the charismatic wold, it seems to refer to exciting preaching, which presumably means that only dramatic preaching can come from God. It also denies the obvious, that many times hawkers and con-men speak in a dramatic manner too. In the Bible, "anointed" basically means "appointed by God" whether or not it is particularly colorful preaching is often irrelevant.

 

[Jesusmyfriend]

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Well. I seemed to have hit a wall. I was referring to Mark 16:16-18 concerning the signs following those who believe. However, within Romans 10:9,10 and Acts 8:12,13 the same Greek translate pisteuō [believe] is used.
While Romans 10:9,10 do not pose a problem according to my interpretation of Mark 16:16-18; Acts 8:12,13 does... I'll have to do some research concerning this one .

Those in Acts 8:12,13 believed in the like Jesus referenced the signs which would follow those who do, however, the two situates do not match... Yikes.

Well, those signs did follow, with Peter and John arriving. Hm. But it wasn't at the initial belief.

Bravo!

I will submit to you that Mark 16 is a spurious text. Verses 9 and following are not in the earliest manuscript (MSS).

To build a doctrine upon this passage is unsteady at best. Best to reconcile with the other more attested to portions . . . not to mention much more in number. One passage is not a good idea either. Better to take a good look at all of them and harmonize . . . after proper hermeneutical exercise of course.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Of course, but those are universal. Some of the statements that you used are from a particular Pentecostal/charismatic bent shall I say. They are not universal. They brand you as a particular kind of Christian, and as is often the case with charismatic terms, they tend towards urban legend rather than biblical fact.

Example: My friends who are heavily influenced by mostly Pentecostal televangelists often use terms like "that was real annointed preaching." Such pop use of the word anointed is different than the biblical use. In the charismatic wold, it seems to refer to exciting preaching, which presumably means that only dramatic preaching can come from God. It also denies the obvious, that many times hawkers and con-men speak in a dramatic manner too. In the Bible, "anointed" basically means "appointed by God" whether or not it is particularly colorful preaching is often irrelevant.

Actually "anoint" doesn't mean "apoint" either . . . you have made the same error that you acuse your P/C friends of doing. Chrisma means smear or rub and is often associated with many things beyond just "appointing" (for instance 1 John 2 where the anointing is said to be able to teach between who is and is not a false teacher) and mostly in association with the rubbing of oil. Mashach in the Hebrew also means the same thing.

Your accusation of "urban legend" is interesting but borderline offensive. Please explain.

 

[Koey]

You are falsely accusing me, without careful reading of what I actually said. I was not speaking of the literal meaning of anoint, but its application.

The Hebrew word mashakh means to smear or spread a liquid, and applies to things such as the oil that was used in Aaron's "appointment" as priest.

A Greek word aleipho means something similar, and was used in such cases as when the disciples anointed people with oil for their healing. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, appointed, consecrated or set aside to preach. The Corinthians were told that all Christians are anointed, established in Christ by God, not just certain preachers who are more dramatic in their presentation. The Hebrew Christians were told that they were anointed with the oil of gladness above their non-Christian fellows. John told us that the anointing which all Christians receive abides in us.

So, yes, the literal meaning of anoint is smear or spread, but in application, we are all smeared with the oil of anointing, which in application, means that we are appointed, set aside, sanctified, given divine gladness and joy above our fellows.

So, when the urban legend, poor theology people say that this or that preacher is "really anointed" they have no idea what they are saying. We are all "really anointed."

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You are falsely accusing me, without careful reading of what I actually said. I was not speaking of the literal meaning of anoint, but its application.

The Hebrew word mashakh means to smear or spread a liquid, and applies to things such as the oil that was used in Aaron's "appointment" as priest.

A Greek word aleipho means something similar, and was used in such cases as when the disciples anointed people with oil for their healing. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, appointed, consecrated or set aside to preach. The Corinthians were told that all Christians are anointed, established in Christ by God, not just certain preachers who are more dramatic in their presentation. The Hebrew Christians were told that they were anointed with the oil of gladness above their non-Christian fellows. John told us that the anointing which all Christians receive abides in us.

So, yes, the literal meaning of anoint is smear or spread, but in application, we are all smeared with the oil of anointing, which in application, means that we are appointed, set aside, sanctified, given divine gladness and joy above our fellows.

So, when the urban legend, poor theology people say that this or that preacher is "really anointed" they have no idea what they are saying. We are all "really anointed."

I understand your proposition . . . yet anoint is often used in the sense of "Spirit Empowered." Esp. concerning the linking of the symbols of the Spirit . . . one of them being oil. The mission statement of Jesus links anointing and proclamation directly together (Luke 4:18) as an empowered ministry of the Spirit.

More often chrisma is used than aleipho. Some lexicons state that aleipho is attributed to the literal act (mundane or profane if you will) . . . chrisma is associated often in metaphorical terms and mostly with a religious connotation (holy and sanctified) . . . sacred in use.

I note your caution . . . many misuse the biblical concept . . . but it is rooted in biblical imagery and esp. in Lukan pneumatology.

Please do not lump all P/C's in the circles of hyper televangelists and the ignorant consituency of their listeners. I know that the P/C "arm" is by and large lacking in discernment and doctrinal integrity . . . but not all. Please don't pigeon hole.

I, for one, can give you biblical backing for many P/C beliefs along with a sound hermeneutic and solid exegesis.

Next time please be clear that you are referring to application of a term when you couch in words like

In the Bible, "anointed" basically means "appointed by God"

Because without the clarifying statement of "by application" your statement implies ontological meaning and not extension in application.

pax

 

[Koey]

I'm sorry! I hope you don't mind me saying that you are wrong and right. A quick count through Bible Works shows that chrisma is used twice in this sense, murio once, chrio 5 times and eleipha 8 times. You corrected me for saying that anointed basically means appointed. Again, I'm sorry, but that is backed up by several Greek lexicons, as follows:

• aleipho 8 times - e.g. Mark 6:13 anointed with oil
• murizo 1 time - e.g. Mat 14:8 anoint my body i.e. pour perfume on
• chrio 5 times - e.g. Luke 4:18 anointed to preach. Friberg Greek lexicon: "God's activity in appointing someone to an office, function or privelege. Appointment, assign, give a task." Louw-Nida Lexicon: "to assign a person to a task, with the implication of supernatural sanctions, blessing and endowment. 'to anoint, to assign, to appoint, assignment, appointment." [my underline]
• chrisma 2 times - 1 John 2:20, 27 "...you have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One...the anointing that you have received abides in you...the same anointing teaches you all things..." Friberg Greek Lexicon: "the gift and empowering of the Holy Spirit for a task anointing, endowment, appointment" [my underline]

Sorry to correct your scholarly work, but I believe that the urban legend still needs correcting. When people say that such and such a preacher was "really anointed," they are implying that others, who preach in a more didactic manner, or perhaps do not use drama and stage performance, are somehow not "really anointed."

I attended a Pentecostal church for two years, but grieved each week as people were drooling over "really anointed" preachers who taught empty-headed fluff and heresy. I confronted the pastor in the end, asking him why he didn't preach the Bible. He told me, "They can read their Bibles at home."

You are right though. Not all Pentecostal churches teach rubbish. My son in a distant city, attends one such Pentecostal church where the Bible is actually taught, and the preacher is a good exegete. I told my son that he was in a good place.

The urban legend I described categorizes preaching according to human values rather than divine. Any preacher who is really divinely "appointed" is "anointed." In the same sense, all Christians have been divinely sanctified and consecrated. They are "really anointed."

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Actually chrisma is 3 x's. Once in 1 John 2:20 and twice in v. 27. John 9:6 and 11 also uses a variant. Rev. 3:18 also uses another variant. Chrio/ien is the base of chrisma so the two are interrelated. Chrio being 5 x's plus the above mentioned is 11 x's. Not to mention that Christ, Christians, and Messiah all have the same link . . . the number count of these in the NT is absurd.

Aleipho is 9 x's . . .plus a variant used in Rev 7:17 and 21:4 and 3:5. Another in Col. 2:14 and Acts 3:19. For about 14 x's.

Unfortunately . . . Christ, Christian and Messiah outweigh the usage of aleipho. These are all derrivatives and hold the concept of "anoint" in view when used.

So . . . sorry . . . chrio/ien is the more dominant usage.

Enough of the shadow boxing. I agree that many attribute "anoint" to the wrong thing (esp. in P/C circles) . . . and the stigma that one must hoop and holler and display emotional theatrics in order to be considered "anointed" is WRONG. These things do not define anointing. Although an anointed preacher may indeed preach like this.

ANY message (whether expositional, topical, didactic, exhortative, whatever) that has the active dynamic of the Spirit in moving and changing people for the glory of God and His great gospel, can be defined as "anointed."

That being said . . . I think that your position in reaction to errors that you have seen have jaded you to overlook a particular dimension of "anointing" . . . that dimension being the mystical/religio dimension. Being that oil is a symbol of the Spirit and being that chrisma is even attributed directly to the Spirit Himself in the bestowal of the supernatural giftings . . . there exists a dimension within the concept that is much deeper and richer that just to "appoint." That is my point.

Pax

 

[Koey]

We do seem to agree that the divine appointment carries with it special gifting and that the urban legend of "really anointed" preaching is an unfortunate prejudice. I will not continue the discussion of words, as I believe you have stretched that a bit beyond its elastic limit. That being said, I think we agree on some important issues.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

as I believe you have stretched that a bit beyond its elastic limit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;0)

No Doubt . . .

pax

 

[Gyorg]

Bravo!

I'm sorry for my arrogance. Mmm, lots of humble pie .

I will submit to you that Mark 16 is a spurious text. Verses 9 and following are not in the earliest manuscript (MSS).

Are there any sources which I can review for study you know of? Being online or not .

To build a doctrine upon this passage is unsteady at best. Best to reconcile with the other more attested to portions . . . not to mention much more in number. One passage is not a good idea either. Better to take a good look at all of them and harmonize . . . after proper hermeneutical exercise of course.

I agree. Taking into account Mark 16 alone was not a grand move. Acts as well 1 Corinthians must be taken into account. It's about time I do some studying.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

I was wondering what everyone theological stance is on the Baptism of the Holy Spririt. I my self believe that one is Baptised in the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion. And it then manifests itself within the believers in spiritual gifts.

In the Bible in many conversion accounts it often says They belived and wer Baptised in the Holy Spirit. Im just curiouse as to others takes on this.

Believers that understood that JC is God
acts 2 first time believers recieve the H.S.

OT saint finnally understanding that JC was God
acts 8:27 OT saint... Needed to believe that Jesus was God... Believe this in acts 8:37


New Believers
acts 10:told gospel in 39-40 yet no promise told yet told of promise in act 10:43

They believed since the Holy Spirit indwelled them in acts 10:44