Holy Spirit Baptism Is NOT Water Immersion

[Mr. M]

That's not what I've been saying. I'm saying that the means through which you and I are made members of the Church, united to Christ, and how the Spirit Himself works in our lives to bring about His work is Baptism.

That is not what I am saying either. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not about "being made members
of the church", that is established by water baptism. The Holy Spirit baptism is for accomplishing the work of ministry. (post #13, which you are not responding to, as I am not responding to "Chrismation", and Hippolytus.
1 Timothy 4:14. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

What I am rejecting is the idea that the laying on of hands (Chrismation) is "the baptism with the Holy Spirit"; or at least Scripture itself never makes that association.

That is exactly the association made in scripture.
Acts 1:8. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
you shall be witnesses to Me=work of the ministry
Luke 24:
48 And you are witnesses of these things.
49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.=baptism of the Holy Spirit for the work of ministry.
These are elementary principles.
Hebrews 6:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Another word that is used is anointing=spiritual gift necessary for the task. If you insist on separating
the baptism of the Holy Spirit from ministering under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, you should
proceed with caution, or end up like the sons of Sceva.

When someone from our church is being "sent out", be it mission field, or street ministry, elders
lay on hands and pray for the anointing of the Holy Spirit to complete the work in His strength. You
say this is not a "baptism", but to succeed in the Lord's work, which is far beyond our own sufficiency,
you must have more than "the seal of the Spirit" received with water baptism, you must be immersed.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit....
Do you associate the term "filled with the Holy Spirit with the baptism (immersion in the Spirit), or why not?

 

[Mr. M]

What do you mean? Because the text doesn't mention Cornelius or anyone in his household having hands laid on them?

I suppose it's possible that they didn't, I have no reason to know for certain one way or another.

So either the outpouring of the Spirit here rendered the laying on of hands superfluous, and that is why Luke doesn't mention it happening; or else we can infer that they did have hands laid on them, but only that Luke doesn't bother to explicitly say so.

In either case, I don't see how it affects the overall point.

-CryptoLutheran

I was just looking for the pattern that you spoke of. Comparing Acts 10 and Cornelius and
Acts 19 and Ephesus. You feel justified in separating the two because Acts 19 mentions
"laying on of hands" and Acts 10 doesn't. I am trying to focus on the outcome and purpose.
The scriptures in Acts 10 clearly indicates that the Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius as
a sign to Peter concerning the Lord's intent to include the gentiles, which he confirms in Acts 15.
There is no follow up as to what resulted from the event from Cornelius and his household's POV.
Did they perform any ministry? Don't know. Hope so.
Acts 19 describes amazing accomplishments of ministry, all of which must be attributed to the
Holy Spirit. I can't see separating all these things based on terminology used. I have always advocated
that the book should be called, "The Acts of the Holy Spirit", not the Apostles, as they would be the
first to testify as to who was doing the work of the ministry. They were "filled with the Holy Spirit"
for ministry. How do you disassociate that from the word "immersion"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is not what I am saying either. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not about "being made members
of the church", that is established by water baptism. The Holy Spirit baptism is for accomplishing the work of ministry. (post #13, which you are not responding to, as I am not responding to "Chrismation", and Hippolytus.
1 Timothy 4:14. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

I wouldn't see the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination to be "baptism with the Holy Spirit" either. What is being discussed here is just that: ordination. Bishops and presbyters are ordained to the sacred ministry by the laying on of hands.

It has echoes back to the Old Testament,

"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses." - Deuteronomy 34:9

In Judaism it is known as semikhah, and is why Jesus says that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat (Matthew 23:2)

The Apostles, likewise, conferred their apostolic authority through the laying on of hands, ordaining bishops and presbyters to serve in their stead. Which is why, historically and still today, most of the historic churches make it a major issue that there is a continuous line of apostolic succession.

In my own Lutheran tradition apostolic succession is understood as being less than necessary, but we still maintain that pastors, having been ordained to the sacred ministry of the Church, retain apostolic authority in the Church. We don't accept the idea of sacerdotalism, that ordained clergy have a sacerdotal or priestly function. The Keys are the general possession of the Church, not of any single person or group of people; but the Church confers the Office of the Keys upon those called and ordained to the exercising of the Keys.

But it really is a matter of public historical record that the conferring of apostolic, pastoral authority began with the apostles and the calling and ordaining of bishops and presbyters to the charge over the safeguarding of the flock and the administering of God's word and the Sacraments. And we see precisely this here in Scripture.

That is exactly the association made in scripture.
Acts 1:8. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
you shall be witnesses to Me=work of the ministry
Luke 24:
48 And you are witnesses of these things.
49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.=baptism of the Holy Spirit for the work of ministry.
These are elementary principles.
Hebrews 6:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Another word that is used is anointing=spiritual gift necessary for the task. If you insist on separating
the baptism of the Holy Spirit from ministering under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, you should
proceed with caution, or end up like the sons of Sceva.

When someone from our church is being "sent out", be it mission field, or street ministry, elders
lay on hands and pray for the anointing of the Holy Spirit to complete the work in His strength. You
say this is not a "baptism", but to succeed in the Lord's work, which is far beyond our own sufficiency,
you must have more than "the seal of the Spirit" received with water baptism, you must be immersed.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit....
Do you associate the term "filled with the Holy Spirit with the baptism (immersion in the Spirit), or why not?

It was to the Apostles that were given their apostolic task and ministry, having received the empowring to do so at Pentecost (as per the words of Christ Himself in Acts ch. 1) which is conferred to those who came after them--bishops and presbyters (aka pastors). Which is why pastors do the same sorts of things the apostles were doing, such as administering Baptism and Chrismation, celebrating the Eucharist, and preaching the word. That is why St. Paul admonishes Timothy to preach the word in and out of season.

So, yes, the laying on of hands for the sake of the sacred ministry is biblical and historical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was just looking for the pattern that you spoke of. Comparing Acts 10 and Cornelius and
Acts 19 and Ephesus. You feel justified in separating the two because Acts 19 mentions
"laying on of hands" and Acts 10 doesn't. I am trying to focus on the outcome and purpose.
The scriptures in Acts 10 clearly indicates that the Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius as
a sign to Peter concerning the Lord's intent to include the gentiles, which he confirms in Acts 15.
There is no follow up as to what resulted from the event from Cornelius and his household's POV.
Did they perform any ministry? Don't know. Hope so.
Acts 19 describes amazing accomplishments of ministry, all of which must be attributed to the
Holy Spirit. I can't see separating all these things based on terminology used. I have always advocated
that the book should be called, "The Acts of the Holy Spirit", not the Apostles, as they would be the
first to testify as to who was doing the work of the ministry. They were "filled with the Holy Spirit"
for ministry. How do you disassociate that from the word "immersion"?

I make a distinction because these are radically different kinds of events. In Acts 10 the Spirit spontaneously pours out on those gathered. In Acts 19 Paul administers Baptism followed by laying on of hands.

What do you mean by me disassociating it from the word "immersion"?

And the work is called the Acts of the Apostles because the book is about the deeds--the acts--of the Apostles. It is about the Apostles going out and being apostles in accordance with Christ's word and the empowering of the Spirit in their ministry. It's not called the Acts of the Holy Spirit because the focus is very specifically on recording the acts, the deeds, the stories of the Apostles. Of course the Spirit was at work through the Apostles' ministry, even as He continues to be at work in the ministry of the Church even today. It is the Spirit who is at work through Word and Sacrament in our lives.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr. M]

What do you mean by me disassociating it from the word "immersion"?

What does "being filled with the Holy Spirit" mean? It happened to Peter spontaneously as the need
arose to speak with authority to those who thought that they were the authority, and they were set
back on their heels.
He had received the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit, for this purpose, to minister the word in Truth.
I am saying there is a direct association to this, a direct correlation between the baptism
of the Holy Spirit and ministry that is essential, and completely scriptural.
How can someone minister in any situation if the Holy Spirit does not fill them?
I do not need the repeated use of the word baptism to associate all Holy Spirit ministry with being filled. So I am saying "filled with the Spirit", is in direct association with baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of hands is taking what was received in the baptism and imparting gifts, even as Moses laid hands on 70 elders and The Lord took from His anointing and imparted or distributed that power unto 70 men.
The anointing for that work was already with Moses, but a part of the Spirit he had from the Lord was transferred.

 

[Mr. M]

The laying on of hands is taking what was received in the baptism and imparting gifts, even as Moses laid hands on 70 elders and The Lord took from His anointing and imparted or distributed that power unto 70 men.
The anointing for that work was already with Moses, but a part of the Spirit he had from the Lord was transferred.

Okay, I reviewed this narrative, it does not say he laid hands on them, the Lord just took it.
The idea is the same, of transferring anointing for someone chosen for a particular work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What does "being filled with the Holy Spirit" mean? It happened to Peter spontaneously as the need
arose to speak with authority to those who thought that they were the authority, and they were set
back on their heels.
He had received the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit, for this purpose, to minister the word in Truth.
I am saying there is a direct association to this, a direct correlation between the baptism
of the Holy Spirit and ministry that is essential, and completely scriptural.
How can someone minister in any situation if the Holy Spirit does not fill them?
I do not need the repeated use of the word baptism to associate all Holy Spirit ministry with being filled. So I am saying "filled with the Spirit", is in direct association with baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of hands is taking what was received in the baptism and imparting gifts, even as Moses laid hands on 70 elders and The Lord took from His anointing and imparted or distributed that power unto 70 men.
The anointing for that work was already with Moses, but a part of the Spirit he had from the Lord was transferred.

I don't think there is any necessary association between baptism with the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit. After all, St. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his conception (Luke 1:15), and St. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she spoke to Mary (Luke 1:41).

St. Paul tells us that rather than being intoxicated with wine we should be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

I am uncertain if the biblical writers intend to always mean the precise same thing here, that is beyond speaking of an active work of the Spirit. At times it seems to suggest a sudden, even spontaneous activity of the Spirit. Though St. Paul's statement in Ephesians is an admonition, thus presumably indicative of a cooperation with the Holy Spirit in some sense. My suspicion, at least at this point, would be that both are accurate. That to be "filled" or "full" of the Holy Spirit speaks of the Spirit's activity and active work, and that when Paul admonishes his readers to be filled with the Spirit he is speaking to them to cooperate with God, in the context of our ongoing sanctification. Given the context of what Paul is saying in Ephesians 5, about how we ought to relate to one another as Christians, I think such an interpretation fits with Paul's overall point.

As such, to be filled with the Spirit is not about the receiving and indwelling of the Spirit, which is the gift of God; but is about our cooperating with, seeking, abiding in, and not quenching the Spirit and the Spirit's work in our lives.

If we take this as our starting point, I think we can also understand what is meant by speaking of John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit from his conception, or Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit when she declares that Mary is blessed among women. It is the activity of the Spirit, the work of the Spirit in connection to people. Elizabeth was not merely speaking an opinion, but was speaking by the power of the Spirit. John the Baptist's life was consecrated to God as a prophet and as the forerunner of the Lord, Peter likewise was filled with the Spirit to speak the sermon he spoke to the gathered pilgrims in Jerusalem. And, in the case of our own mundane lives as Christians, it is the admonition that we live in accordance with the Holy Spirit, living lives pleasing to God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr. M]

I don't think there is any necessary association between baptism with the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit.

This is so interesting, because everything you say after this opening sentence to me indicates a
direct association of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. LOL

I think we can also understand what is meant by speaking of John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit from his conception

For example, I don't see how you can make this statement, and then say that it is incorrect to say
that John the baptist was baptized in the Holy Spirit.
By way of analogy, if water baptism is where our walk in the Spirit of Christ begins, i.e. abiding in
the indwelling Spirit received as a seal of the promise of the Father, then...
If we have been baptized in the Holy Spirit for ministry, be it apostle or other, then every time
we step up and minister "being filled with the Holy Spirit" had to originate with having been baptized
with the Holy Spirit for ministry.
If a believer decides to spend his time on this earth as a sheep, it takes no baptism in the Holy Spirit,
as they abide under another man's anointing.
Philippians 1:7. Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are
partakers of my grace.

We aren't going to separate grace from either baptism are we?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is so interesting, because everything you say after this opening sentence to me indicates a
direct association of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. LOL

For example, I don't see how you can make this statement, and then say that it is incorrect to say
that John the baptist was baptized in the Holy Spirit.
By way of analogy, if water baptism is where our walk in the Spirit of Christ begins, i.e. abiding in
the indwelling Spirit received as a seal of the promise of the Father, then...
If we have been baptized in the Holy Spirit for ministry, be it apostle or other, then every time
we step up and minister "being filled with the Holy Spirit" had to originate with having been baptized
with the Holy Spirit for ministry.
If a believer decides to spend his time on this earth as a sheep, it takes no baptism in the Holy Spirit,
as they abide under another man's anointing.
Philippians 1:7. Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are
partakers of my grace.

We aren't going to separate grace from either baptism are we?

It's because I don't see "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as being something individuals experience, either once or multiple times. But rather speaks of something that happened in history. It happened on Pentecost.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr. M]

It's because I don't see "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as being something individuals experience, either once or multiple times. But rather speaks of something that happened in history. It happened on Pentecost.

Okay, I guess that is where we will leave it. Good talk.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is not what I am saying either. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not about "being made members
of the church", that is established by water baptism. The Holy Spirit baptism is for accomplishing the work of ministry. (post #13, which you are not responding to, as I am not responding to "Chrismation", and Hippolytus.
1 Timothy 4:14. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

That is exactly the association made in scripture.
Acts 1:8. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
you shall be witnesses to Me=work of the ministry
Luke 24:
48 And you are witnesses of these things.
49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.=baptism of the Holy Spirit for the work of ministry.
These are elementary principles.
Hebrews 6:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Another word that is used is anointing=spiritual gift necessary for the task. If you insist on separating
the baptism of the Holy Spirit from ministering under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, you should
proceed with caution, or end up like the sons of Sceva.

When someone from our church is being "sent out", be it mission field, or street ministry, elders
lay on hands and pray for the anointing of the Holy Spirit to complete the work in His strength. You
say this is not a "baptism", but to succeed in the Lord's work, which is far beyond our own sufficiency,
you must have more than "the seal of the Spirit" received with water baptism, you must be immersed.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit....
Do you associate the term "filled with the Holy Spirit with the baptism (immersion in the Spirit), or why not?

This is not necessary, the gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation. Surely you think the Holy Spirit will refuse to work thru someone because elders didn’t lay hands upon him do you?

 

[Mr. M]

Surely you think the Holy Spirit will refuse to work thru someone because elders didn’t lay hands upon him do you?

I did not say this. Any believer can minister the gospel to the world, as you seem to be saying.
Not anyone can function in the ministry of the church as elder, pastor, evangelist, etc...
As the scriptures I quoted along with the explanation provided stated, this is preceded by the laying on
of hands. This is in the post #21 that you are responding to, without acknowledging. Ministry to the
world =/= ministering to the saints. Churches don't let just anyone teach. If they do not lay on hands
by there tradition, or seek indication that person has an unction of the Spirit before letting them teach
then that is their way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I did not say this. Any believer can minister the gospel to the world, as you seem to be saying.
Not anyone can function in the ministry of the church as elder, pastor, evangelist, etc...
As the scriptures I quoted along with the explanation provided stated, this is preceded by the laying on
of hands. This is in the post #21 that you are responding to, without acknowledging. Ministry to the
world =/= ministering to the saints. Churches don't let just anyone teach. If they do not lay on hands
by there tradition, or seek indication that person has an unction of the Spirit before letting them teach
then that is their way.

Please forgive me friend I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that a person cannot bring another to repentance by spreading the gospel unless the elders had laid hands on him. My point was that the gospel is the power of God for repentance. The gospel itself has the power to elicit a response in any individual. Amen?

 

[Mr. M]

Please forgive me friend I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that a person cannot bring another to repentance by spreading the gospel unless the elders had laid hands on him. My point was that the gospel is the power of God for repentance. The gospel itself has the power to elicit a response in any individual. Amen?

As in "you are the light of the world", let's go live it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As in "you are the light of the world", let's go live it.

Praise be to God Our Heavenly Father and Savior forever Amen!!

 

[Swag365]

Mark 16:16. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe
will be condemned.
All who believe and are baptized, are born again unto a living hope, made alive together
with Christ, having all trespasses forgiven.
1 Peter 1:3 Colossians 2:12
They are buried with Him in immersion, being baptized into His death, to walk
in newness of life.
Romans 6:4 , Romans 2:28
They are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, which is of the heart, in the Spirit,
and having received the promise of the Father, can confess that Jesus is their Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:3. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

However, you cannot "tuck away" the baptism of the Holy Spirit under water baptism as if
it is all one thing. When you study the baptism of the Holy Spirit in: Acts 2 Acts 4 Acts 10
and Acts 19 you will find that it is a corporate experience, unifying the members of Christ's body, empowering them to carry out their mandate in Christ. The instructions pertaining to this baptism are never applied to an individual, for all who are in Christ are born again from above, and are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 1:13 Ephesians 4:30
For example, Philip the evangelist converting and baptizing the eunuch Acts 8:26
Jesus is addressing all of His holy apostles in

Acts 1:5. for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit
not many days from now.
These men had all been made clean by His Word, water baptized in His Name and were born again, ministering in the Spirit, and had the Spirit breathed into them after the resurrection. John 20:22
And yet, He instructs them:
Acts 1:8. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which came upon them in Acts 2 and 4, also upon the household of Cornelius as a sign to Peter and his companions in Acts 10. Most instructive of
all is the church at Ephesus in Acts 19.
This is the "One Spirit, One Baptism" that Paul speaks of in his letter to them,
not water baptism, many greatly err in misinterpreting this:
Ephesians 4:
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace is established under the baptism of the
Holy Spirit, something many do not acknowledge, perhaps labeling it "Pentecostal".
No my friends, this is Christian Baptism, for it is the Spirit that bonds us together,
when we are committed to the endeavor of True Fellowship.
This is what it means to be "In Christ".
There will be many who came to Christ, received forgiveness of their sins and baptized in
His Name, and in the absence of true Holy Spirit discipleship will have never experienced
the baptism in the Holy Spirit, of which tongues is just one small manifestation.
All the gifts, administrations, and ministries of the Holy Spirit are necessary to thrive in Christ.

Acts 19:
1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the
upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples
2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
Continue reading the chapter and enjoy the wonder of the "Acts of the Holy Spirit".

What Christian denominations hold that they are the same thing?

 

[Mr. M]

What Christian denominations hold that they are the same thing?

I do not know. This is what I learned today.

It's because I don't see "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as being something individuals experience, either once or multiple times. But rather speaks of something that happened in history. It happened on Pentecost.

You can read the rest of the discussion that occurred, but I have no idea to what degree other
denominations are reflected in VC's post, or denominations that are consistent with mine.

 

[Saint Steven]

I also would closely consider the narrative of Acts 19, and what occurred in Ephesus. I do not believe
that the Holy Spirit gives us any trivial information. In Acts 2, there was 120 in the upper room. I cannot
conclude by that 120 are required for an outpouring of the Spirit. At Ephesus, we are told there were
12 men, was that for no reason? I believe in the practical aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is
not ceremonial. Paul says that "a dispensation has been given unto me, woe is me if I do not preach
the Gospel!"
If the work is the Lord's, the Spirit is always the provision to accomplish that work.

There has been a challenge to the 120 in the upper room theory concerning the outpouring at Pentecost. The 120 in the upper room comes from Acts chapter 1, not Acts chapter 2. (for starters)

It also makes no sense that they would be heard out in the street from the upper room. The new theory puts them on a porch outside the Temple area. Which makes more sense logistically.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'd agree that it was an extension of Pentecost, my point was really that it was one of two events that are identified as being the "baptism with the Holy Spirit". I think that the point of what happened at Cornelius' house was a sign from God that Gentiles are part of what God began on Pentecost.

That's why I argue that the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is a reference to what happened on Pentecost, what occurred then and there was the fulfillment of what John had foretold and Jesus affirmed.

We all participate in Pentecost by God's work of bringing us into the Body of Christ, the Church, through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Which is why St. Peter attaches the promise of the Spirit with Baptism in Acts 2:38.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for the explanation. I always appreciate reading your perspective on these things. And I agree to an extent with what you have written.

From my perspective the outpouring at Pentecost was the initiation of the promised Holy Spirit. The comforter and guide that Jesus had promised would be with them in his physical absence.

The initial outpouring was on those believers who gathered on that day. Then AFTER Peter's sermon, the three thousand that were added to their number that day received the Spirit. NOTICE this was a RESULT of the outpouring NOT the outpouring itself. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (water baptized and Spirit baptized)

Therefore, whether individuals or groups of various numbers, the baptism with the Spirit was an extension of the outpouring at Pentecost.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit was and is an ongoing event. Peter said the gentiles "... received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (Acts 10:47) And Peter retells the story of Cornelius saying, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 11:16) The Apostle Paul says, "... we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles..." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Acts 10:47
“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.