Discussion The Holy Spirit

[ByTheSpirit]

So I am more and more finding myself wondering if the Holy Spirit really has a twofold experience in a believer's life.



For instance, Peter says Repent, get baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit... just once



Paul asked the Ephesian disciples if they had received the Spirit and they said they had not even heard the Spirit had come.



so what is the consensus?



I know in John 20 Jesus breaths on the disciples and says receive the Holy Spirit, but that is about the only mention of the Spirit not falling or filling people who believe. Is that sufficient evidence for a twofold experience?


So in other words, do Oneness Pentecostals have that doctrine right? That a person either has the Spirit or they don't, no 2 fold experience where the Spirit dwells in first then comes in power next.

This is meant to be a discussion. Not a debate, please be respectful of others opinions. Be sure to back your view with scripture!

 

[Theadorus]

Ok, so when you get saved you are sealed with the holy spirit and that seal is our promise from God that we have acess into eternity when jesus comes back. That is found in ephesians chapter 1 vs 13 or 14 i believe.

Now, after we get born again we are told to get baptized by the holy spirit, and that's when we flow in the power and gifts of God. Think of ot this way, being born again is like a tool belt, and getting baptized is like getting the tool to go into that tool belt.

So yes you can say they are two different experiences.

 

[frienden thalord]

We cant even believe without the Spirit.
however, their is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is different.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Ok, so when you get saved you are sealed with the holy spirit and that seal is our promise from God that we have acess into eternity when jesus comes back. That is found in ephesians chapter 1 vs 13 or 14 i believe.

Now, after we get born again we are told to get baptized by the holy spirit, and that's when we flow in the power and gifts of God. Think of ot this way, being born again is like a tool belt, and getting baptized is like getting the tool to go into that tool belt.

So yes you can say they are two different experiences.

Ok, I do agree he is our seal, but does that necessarily mean the Spirit indwells us before we get baptized the Spirit?

 

[Theadorus]

Yes he indwells within us the moment we get saved. romans 8:9-11 talks about the holy spirit living in us, but doesn't answer the question exactly.

The best way i can explain it is that the moment we believe on christ we are born again given a new spirit ,which is the same spirit that raised christ from the dead, which is also the holy spirit. I hope I'm making sense, but we all receive the holy spirit once we are born again.

 

[Waggles]

@ByTheSpirit

I have been born again by water and the Spirit in accordance with the scriptures for some 20
years now -December 1996 > now.
When I came out of a local shopping centre into the mall out front a man spoke to me about how I could receive the Holy Spirit and know with all certainty that Jesus and the gospel are true.
He opened up his large-print KJV and simply read out various pertinent scriptures to this promise;
John 3, John 14, 16 and 17, Mark 16:15-20, Luke 24:49, Acts 2:1-4, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 10, Acts 19,
and ICorinthians, Jude 1:20-21 etc etc. Actually there are a great deal of scriptures concerning being
born again. filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, the gifts of the Spirit, walking in the Spirit...

It must have been my time to be convicted, because convicted I was and the words of God came off
from Bob's Bible into my heart. I was greatly troubled and kept thinking 'what if all this is true?'
I attended a Wednesday night (October 30th, 1996) Revival Fellowship meeting and at the conclusion Bob
walked over to me and asked, "Well, Nick, are you going to get baptized tonight?"
Immediately the Lord himself brought scriptures to mind and I knew then and there that I had a choice
to either accept Jesus as my Saviour before others, or to deny him before others.
So I got baptized by full immersion (the Bible way).

On Sunday 1st December 1996 I spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave me a wonderful marvellous new
prayer language for me to communicate directly in spirit to both Jesus and my heavenly Father.
And I immediately experienced my first several miracles of healing and liberty that very afternoon.

And this is the common experience for everybody in our Pentecostal by the book Revival Fellowship.
Everybody is baptized by full immersion and all are baptized in the Holy Spirit with the Bible
evidence of speaking in new tongues.

No divisions. No schisms. No arguments. The word of God is pretty straightforward and uncomplicated
in respect to being converted and born new by water and the Holy Spirit.

And we also exercise the nine gifts of the Spirit given to the Church for our benefit, exhortation and
edifying. At every formal worship meeting we have tongues, interpretation and prophesying.
Exactly as described and commanded in 1 Corinthians 14.

 

[Biblicist]

So I am more and more finding myself wondering if the Holy Spirit really has a twofold experience in a believer's life.

For instance, Peter says Repent, get baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit... just once Paul asked the Ephesian disciples if they had received the Spirit and they said they had not even heard the Spirit had come.
So what is the consensus?

I know in John 20 Jesus breaths on the disciples and says receive the Holy Spirit, but that is about the only mention of the Spirit not falling or filling people who believe. Is that sufficient evidence for a twofold experience?

So in other words, do Oneness Pentecostals have that doctrine right? That a person either has the Spirit or they don't, no 2 fold experience where the Spirit dwells in first then comes in power next.

This is meant to be a discussion. Not a debate, please be respectful of others opinions. Be sure to back your view with scripture!

For the many on this forum who undoubtedly received the Fullness of the Spirit much the same as many millions of other have sometime after their initial Salvation experience, then the view that states that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a subsequent experience to our first being sealed in the Spirit makes complete sense, which is what happened to me as well.

This is why I also believed in this understanding for many years as it matched not only my own experience but as I said, it also relates to the experiences of millions of others. But the problem here is that the Scriptures do not provide any support for such a view; what we failed to understand is that we did not so much receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as an intended "second experience" of the Spirit but that we simply embraced what we could have obtained the very second that we were Born Again.

What happened to the many millions who embraced the Fullness of the Spirit days, months or even years later was in effect an 'accident of history' in that as a result of poor teaching down the centuries we did not understand that at our initial moment of Salvation that we were in fact Baptised in the Holy Spirit where we were empowered to speak in tongues and prophesy from our initial Salvific experience.

This is the view of probably the vast majority of contemporary Charismatics and is the position of the Evangelicals as well; though the Evangelicals seem to rarely use the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit in their everyday language as they rarely have a strong enough understanding and experience of the Holy Spirit. The classic-Pentecostals (i.e., AoG) still hold to the position of subsequence though hopefully they will be able to muster enough courage within a decade or so to discard this now very dated understanding.

The problem with the Oneness Pentecostal understanding is that even though they are closer to the truth on this position, where they agree with the Evangelicals, is that they have failed to understand that our Salvation is by faith and by confessing that Jesus is our Lord. What they have done is turned this powerful recognition that Jesus is our Lord into a works based outcome. But as I am a Pentecostal (though not a classic-Pentecostal such as with the AoG), I still believe that we should be encouraging all new initiates to expect to be able to speak in tongues the moment that they confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Yes he indwells within us the moment we get saved. romans 8:9-11 talks about the holy spirit living in us, but doesn't answer the question exactly.

The best way i can explain it is that the moment we believe on christ we are born again given a new spirit ,which is the same spirit that raised christ from the dead, which is also the holy spirit. I hope I'm making sense, but we all receive the holy spirit once

I understand the reason behind your words. I do. But there is no scripture that says the Spirit comes in two distinct operations.

The scriptures call him a seal of salvation, counselor, Spirit of Truth, among other things and scriptures speak at length concerning his purpose in our lives, but there is no place in scripture that states someone can be born again without being "baptized in (or receiving) the Spirit" as the Apostles and early church did.

John 3:5

Unless you are born of WATER & SPIRIT you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38

REPENT, be BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus, and you will RECEIVE the HOLY SPIRIT

Titus 3:5

He SAVED us, by the WASHING of regeneration & renewal of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Four completely separate people all testifying the same truth.

To be born again a person must repent, be baptized in Jesus name, then receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

For the many on this forum who undoubtedly received the Fullness of the Spirit much the same as many millions of other have sometime after their initial Salvation experience, then the view that states that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a subsequent experience to our first being sealed in the Spirit makes complete sense, which is what happened to me as well.

This is why I also believed in this understanding for many years as it matched not only my own experience but as I said, it also relates to the experiences of millions of others. But the problem here is that the Scriptures do not provide any support for such a view; what we failed to understand is that we did not so much receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as an intended "second experience" of the Spirit but that we simply embraced what we could have obtained the very second that we were Born Again.

What happened to the many millions who embraced the Fullness of the Spirit days, months or even years later was in effect an 'accident of history' in that as a result of poor teaching down the centuries we did not understand that at our initial moment of Salvation that we were in fact Baptised in the Holy Spirit where we were empowered to speak in tongues and prophesy from our initial Salvific experience.

This is the view of probably the vast majority of contemporary Charismatics and is the position of the Evangelicals as well; though the Evangelicals seem to rarely use the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit in their everyday language as they rarely have a strong enough understanding and experience of the Holy Spirit. The classic-Pentecostals (i.e., AoG) still hold to the position of subsequence though hopefully they will be able to muster enough courage within a decade or so to discard this now very dated understanding.

The problem with the Oneness Pentecostal understanding is that even though they are closer to the truth on this position, where they agree with the Evangelicals, is that they have failed to understand that our Salvation is by faith and by confessing that Jesus is our Lord. What they have done is turned this powerful recognition that Jesus is our Lord into a works based outcome. But as I am a Pentecostal (though not a classic-Pentecostal such as with the AoG), I still believe that we should be encouraging all new initiates to expect to be able to speak in tongues the moment that they confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

You know I love you brother and ALWAYS enjoy our interactions here. I believe God is gracious and allows us to be ignorant on such topics while still sanctifying us and justifying us all the same.

I am in no way a Oneness Pentecostal. I just happen to think they are very very close to correct on this particular point.

 

[Biblicist]

You know I love you brother and ALWAYS enjoy our interactions here. I believe God is gracious and allows us to be ignorant on such topics while still sanctifying us and justifying us all the same.

I am in no way a Oneness Pentecostal. I just happen to think they are very very close to correct on this particular point.

Yes, I fully agree with you in that strangely enough, the Oneness Pentecostals do have a better understanding of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit but of course where their theology went down a hole is with how they incorrectly insist that each new Initiate must be able to demonstrate that they can first speak in tongues as evidence of their Salvation.

 

[Waggles]

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom
also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 1:13
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Ephesians 4:30

SEALED G4972 sphragizō
From G4973; to stamp (with a signet or private mark) for security or preservation (literally or figuratively); by implication to keep secret, to attest: - (set a, set to) seal up, stop.

When a believer (disciple) is filled [baptized] with the Holy Spirit they receive the power of God within
to enable them to become overcomers, and to walk in the Spirit and to bear fruit to the Spirit.
Such Christians then have a testimony to their conversion and experience of "coming to the Lord"
or receiving the full gospel of salvation.
We are sealed, marked, stamped, identified, as belonging to the Lord and hopefully enduring through all
our trials and tribulations to obtain the salvation of our souls.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained
mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
1Peter 2:9-12

 

[Theadorus]

*

 

[Waggles]

how they incorrectly insist that each new Initiate must be able to demonstrate that they can first speak in tongues as evidence of their Salvation.

This is not error.
To be baptized in the Holy Spirit that is to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit a convert MUST speak in
tongues. This is the only Bible evidence given for this. Jesus himself declared that believers would speak
in new tongues. Acts and the epistles reaffirm this over and over.
Paul writes of praying with his understanding and in the Spirit.
Jude writes that we are to pray in the Spirit.

God is not the author of confusion, unbelieving people with their theologies are much confused
over this. In our Fellowship everybody speaks in tongues and can testify to this wonderful experience.
Keep it simple. Believe the scriptures. Just do it. Enjoy the benefits.

 

[Waggles]

But then what do you do with the jailer in the book of acts where paul tells him to believe and you will be saved? Or in romans 10:10 where we are told to believe i our hearts and confess with out mouths and that when we believe we are made righteous and when we confess we are saved?

Paul is telling unconverted people to believe the full gospel that he and the other apostles and disciple were preaching to everybody at that time.
Romans 10 comes after Romans 6 (baptism by full immersion) and Romans 8 (baptism in Holy Spirit).
A verse by itself does not a gospel make!

 

[ByTheSpirit]

But then what do you do with the jailer in the book of acts where paul tells him to believe and you will be saved? Or in romans 10:10 where we are told to believe i our hearts and confess with out mouths and that when we believe we are made righteous and when we confess we are saved?

What does "believe" mean? It means to put your faith to action. It is an action word. What did Paul do with that Philippians jailer? He baptized him immediately. Just like they did with every new believer.

You cannot make a salvation doctrine based off one or two verses out of all the verses that deal with salvation. That is how false doctrine forms.

anyways, none of this says anything about the Spirit first indwelling then a person needing to be baptized in the Spirit later.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

This is not error.
To be baptized in the Holy Spirit that is to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit a convert MUST speak in
tongues. This is the only Bible evidence given for this. Jesus himself declared that believers would speak
in new tongues. Acts and the epistles reaffirm this over and over.
Paul writes of praying with his understanding and in the Spirit.
Jude writes that we are to pray in the Spirit.

God is not the author of confusion, unbelieving people with their theologies are much confused
over this. In our Fellowship everybody speaks in tongues and can testify to this wonderful experience.
Keep it simple. Believe the scriptures. Just do it. Enjoy the benefits.

There are other scriptural proofs of receiving the baptism of the Spirit.

The Ephesian disciples prophesied.

Paul received his sight again.

I think the baptism of the Spirit will be accompanied by visible signs, but not necessarily Tongues each time. But I could be wrong.

 

[Biblicist]

This is not error.
To be baptized in the Holy Spirit that is to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit a convert MUST speak in
tongues. This is the only Bible evidence given for this. Jesus himself declared that believers would speak
in new tongues. Acts and the epistles reaffirm this over and over.
Paul writes of praying with his understanding and in the Spirit.
Jude writes that we are to pray in the Spirit.

What you have failed to notice is that Jesus was referring either to events such as the Day of Pentecost where the Believers were empowered to speak in human languages or that some or many Believers will be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), as we should all be desiring to do. The passage of Mark 16:17 is not saying that all MUST speak in tongues but that this will occur within the Church. If you want to take this passage to its full extent then only those who can demonstrate that they can caste out demons should be deemed to be Christians, which means, if you can't exorcise demons then you are not saved.

God is not the author of confusion, unbelieving people with their theologies are much confused
over this. In our Fellowship everybody speaks in tongues and can testify to this wonderful experience.
Keep it simple. Believe the scriptures. Just do it. Enjoy the benefits.

Why is that when people throw around "God is not the author of confusion" that what they are trying to say is that their particular pet theories are supposedly the views of God.

I should point out that forum rules rightfully forbid any doctrinal views that support the distinctive views of the Oneness Pentecostals and particularly the errant view that tongues are necessary for salvation.

 

[Biblicist]

There are other scriptural proofs of receiving the baptism of the Spirit.

The Ephesian disciples prophesied.

Paul received his sight again.

I think the baptism of the Spirit will be accompanied by visible signs, but not necessarily Tongues each time. But I could be wrong.

Even though it is not necessary to demonstrate that a person can speak in tongues before we can consider them to be saved, we should still encourage all new intending converts to allow the Holy Spirit to give them a new tongue so that they can praise their Father and we should probably also encourage all new initiates to prophesy as well.

Since the 1980's many classic-Pentecostal scholars (i.e., AoG) have realised that in the Epistles that Paul does not provide any support or even a suggestion that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is supposed to be subsequent to our initial Salvation. Once this was pointed out to the classic-Pentecostals, we began to see the rise of a new approach to classic-Pentecostal theology with what is called Lukan-Pauline theology where the classic-Pentecostals have acknowledged that Paul does not speak of such a thing but that Luke (Acts) supposedly does.

Three very important books have been written to support the false notion that Luke essentially overrides Paul's theology, which in itself creates more problems than it solves:

• The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Roger Stronstad (1984)
• THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN PNEUMATOLOGY: with special reference to Luke-Acts, Robert P. Menzies (1991)
• Spirit and Power, William & Robert Menzies (2000)

The following Forword from the book The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke by Roger Stronstad shows how high the expectations were that this new approach to Lukan-Pauline studies would in fact support that classic-Pentecostal understanding of subsequence. But by maybe the late 1990's there remained very little if any interest in this debate which is now seen more of a classic-Pentecostal oddity that has no real place within serious theological discussion regarding the Holy Spirit.

Spoiler: Charismatic Theology of Luke

The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Roger Stronstad (1984) pp.vii-viii

FOREWORD

I am quite frankly excited at the appearance of Roger Stronstad’s book The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Until now people have had to recognize Pentecostalism as a powerful force in the areas of spirituality, church growth, and world mission, but they have not felt it had much to offer for biblical, theological, and intellectual foundations. But this is fast changing, and with the appearance of this book we may be seeing the first motions of a wave of intellectually convincing Pentecostal theology which will sweep in upon us in the next decades. Watch out you evangelicals—the young Pentecostal scholars are coming! We are going to have to take them seriously in the intellectual realm as well as in the other areas. There can be no more looking down the nose at them from the unchallenged heights of superiority. Pentecostal theology will have to receive the respect which is already given to Lutheran, Calvinist, and Wesleyan thought. Pentecostal people can be proud of their new intellectual leaders, and assuming that they behave responsibly in their communities, I hope they will be given room to think and be affirmed in their calling. The Pentecostal experience deserves and needs a good theological articulation of the kind Roger offers us here.

I would further say that I think Roger is right in his position. St. Luke does support a charismatic theology and religion. Some of our best people, like Dale Bruner and James Dunn, have tried to impose their reading of Paul upon Luke’s writings and have distorted it. Ironically, at this point at least, there is greater diversity in the New Testament than even Jimmy Dunn is prepared to grant! St. Luke speaks of a baptism of power for service which is not oriented to the soteriological work of the Spirit, which Paul often addresses. The theologies of Luke and Paul are complementary to each other but must not be confused as being identical in the usual way. Paul has room, of course, for what Luke says in his treatment of the charismatic structure of the congregation in 1 Corinthians 12-14, but Luke must not be imprisoned in one room of the Pauline house. Nor have we any right, as the custom is among evangelicals, to put Luke down because his work is narrative and not didactic theology. Stronstad clears up these confusions, as well as others, and gives us here a solid basis for Pentecostal thinking and practice.

The meaning of this book is that the walls must come down between Pentecostals and evangelicals. If canonical Luke has a charismatic theology as Stronstad proves, we cannot consider Pentecostalism to be a kind of aberration born of experiential excesses but a 20th century revival of New Testament theology and religion. It has not only restored joy and power to the church but a clearer reading of the Bible as well. So with gladness of heart I say, “Welcome to this book and peace to the Pentecostal communities.” We should let Stronstad help us grow together in the unity of the faith in the Son of God.​

Clark H. Pinnock

McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario.

Edit. I only located this book yesterday (which I am very pleased about) so I am still in the process of going through this very important classic-Pentecostal approach to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.​

 

[Waggles]

Paul received his sight again.

I think the baptism of the Spirit will be accompanied by visible signs, but not necessarily Tongues each time. But I could be wrong.

Paul spoke in tongues as did all first century Pentecostal Christians
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
1 Corinthians 14:18

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him,
We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them;
and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Acts 19:

 

[Waggles]

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are 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.
Ephesians 4:4-6