The Spirit's Power and Basic Christian Experience

[Trusting in Him]

Real prayer has an element of being lost in Him. We learn to pray from the heart when we are alone with Him. How we are when alone with Him is how we really are and not trying to impress anyone. It can take many of us a long time to come to this point, to think that you are anything before a mighty and all powerful God is to think to much of who we are. We are nothing, but He must be everything to us. It is not accident that broken people with broken lives find that they need Him so much!

I used to be young, fit and healthy, but now I am older in the later days of my life, I am no longer young fit and healthy with a broken mind and body and it is now that I begin to understand how much that I need Him and how little I deserve His love and kindness. We are nothing, but He is the one who created us and gave us life, we had no part in that. Do we not owe Him more than we are ever able to pay, that's what it means to be redeemed. Praise His name!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Jesus creates the impression that the new birth is like a once-for-all occurrence: "So it [like the wind whose origin and movement is mysterious] is with everyone who is born of the Spirit (John 3:8)." But Peter's seed analogy conceives of salvation as a growth process: "You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable seed through the living and abiding Word of God (1 Peter 1:23)."

Thanks for the reply, Berserk.

It's an interesting question to mull over, but I have to say I still line up pretty squarely with mainline Pentecostal teaching on this one, at least in terms of there being two different experiences. The passage in John 3 is teaching on being born of the Spirit (i.e. baptized in the Spirit) whereas the 1st Peter teaching is on being born of the word, with the latter of necessity having to precede the former. The Spirit is sent to confirm the word with signs and wonders, and to lead believers into all truth concerning it, and without the believer putting faith in that word initially to start with, there will be no grounds for either. Both are separate and distinct, and both are necessary to full spiritual growth and development.

If there were not two different events of being born of the word and then born of the Spirit, they would always happen simultaneously, IMO, and this is not what we see happening in scripture, nor in the lives of most Christians today, nor in my own and many other believers' lives who have had similar experiences.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond, and God bless.
- H

 

[ARBITER01]

There's a difference between being sealed with The Spirit and being filled of The Spirit. Both are separate experiences from GOD as described in acts.

 

[Trusting in Him]

There's a difference between being sealed with The Spirit and being filled of The Spirit. Both are separate experiences from GOD as described in acts.

It does often seem to be that way!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes - I look at the life of Christ.

Born with HS within - didn't need to be born again.

At Baptism HS comes upon and remains upon (this was what JB was asked to watch out for in order to identify Messiah) This remaining on by God's power was the first ever Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

For us the same- reborn then empowered (in God's time) sometimes immediately, sometimes later.

Jesus was prophetic before BHS. This was evident from a young age teaching in the temple, going about His Fathers business.

 

[ARBITER01]

It does often seem to be that way!

I think people make up terminology that confuses folks at time. I don't say "the baptism of The Spirit" rather I say "being filled of The Spirit."

That agrees with sections of scripture better.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Matthew 3:11
“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

According to Watchman Nee, if I remember correctly, the first baptism is for the ability to live the Christian life (when He breathed on them) and the second baptism by fire was for service (the great commission) at Pentecost.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think being Baptised in the Spirit is different than being topped up with the spirit (filled with the spirit.)

 

[ARBITER01]

According to Watchman Nee, if I remember correctly, the first baptism is for the ability to live the Christian life (when He breathed on them) and the second baptism by fire was for service (the great commission) at Pentecost.

Partially correct.

The only Spiritual immersion we receive is the first, which is our born again experience, the sealing with The Spirit. The second experience is the filling of The Spirit, which brings in a greater presence of The Holy Spirit in you and His gifts.

Most people reach that point and quit. They do not pursue the anointing upon their head so that The Holy Spirit can rest upon them in power. That is the empowerment for service, where The Holy Spirit operates the greater giftings through us.

Some people reached that point in the past and seen GOD perform great miracles through them. It's still available, but most people either don't care to know about it or don't believe in it.

 

[Berserk]

First, let me give another Pauline example of praying in the Spirit: "Gpd has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father!" (gal. 4:6)." Then let me respond to a couple of the thoughful comments since my last post:

Hidden in Him: "It's an interesting question to mull over, but I have to say I still line up pretty squarely with mainline Pentecostal teaching on this one, at least in terms of there being two different experiences."

Paul teaches that Spirit baptism incorporates the believer into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), but you consider this a follow-up experience after one' s initial regeneration by the Spirit. The obvious implication is that new believers are not yet members of the Body of Christ after the Spirit regenerates them. Is that what you want to say?

arbiter01: "There's a difference between being sealed with The Spirit and being filled of The Spirit. Both are separate experiences from GOD as described in acts."

But being "sealed with the Spirit" is the same as regeneration by the Spirit and there is no evidence in Luke-Acts for a belief in initial regeneration by the Spirit. The ecstatic manifestations when believers "receive the Spirit" are treated as intial works of the Spirit jin Acts.

 

[ARBITER01]

But being "sealed with the Spirit" is the same as regeneration by the Spirit

Correct. You are given an initial portion of The Spirit until the day of redemption.

and there is no evidence in Luke-Acts for a belief in initial regeneration by the Spirit. The ecstatic manifestations when believers "receive the Spirit" are treated as initial works of the Spirit jin Acts.

Incorrect.

You should read acts more, you are clearly missing accounts where people received The the filling of The Holy Spirit after they believed, ie were born again.

Question for you,.....

In basic English and grammar understanding, are you immersed in or immersed with?

 

[Berserk]

Arbiter1: "You should read acts more,"

I guarantee you that I've read Acts, even in Greek, more than you at both the Princeton MDiv and Harvard doctoral level in NT!

Arobiter1: " you are clearly missing accounts where people received the filling of The Holy Spirit after they believed, ie were born again.

No, you are harmonizing with texts outside of Acts and thus missing the point that neither the concept of new birth nor the concept of Spirit regeneration are present in Luke-Acts. For Luke, initial reception of the Spirit manifests in speaking in tongues and prophesying (2:4, 17; 10:44-47, and 19:1-6) and empowers one for witnessing (1:8), but is not understood in terms of regeneration through the Holy Spirit.

"Question for you,.....In basic English and grammar understanding, are you immersed in or immersed with?"
Good question! In both Acts 1:5 and 1 Cor. 12:13 we are "immersed" (baptized) in (Greek: "en") the Holy Spirit. The Greek "En" can shade off into "with" or "by" but "in" is its primary meaning and indeed the meaning most likely to go with "immersed."

 

[ARBITER01]

Arbiter1: "You should read acts more,"

I guarantee you that I've read Acts, even in Greek, more than you at both the Princeton MDiv and Harvard doctoral level in NT!

Arobiter1: " you are clearly missing accounts where people received the filling of The Holy Spirit after they believed, ie were born again.

No, you are harmonizing with texts outside of Acts and thus missing the point that neither the concept of new birth nor the concept of Spirit regeneration are present in Luke-Acts. For Luke, initial reception of the Spirit manifests in speaking in tongues and prophesying (2:4, 17; 10:44-47, and 19:1-6) and empowers one for witnessing (1:8), but is not understood in terms of regeneration through the Holy Spirit.

I'll bring up some scripture up later, I'm still at work.

And I guarantee you that I've read it more,..... I've wrote it out from scratch, and The Holy Spirit still finds improvements with earlier texts when I re-read it at times now,.... and this has covered over 10 years.

"Question for you,.....In basic English and grammar understanding, are you immersed in or immersed with?"
Good question! In both Acts 1:5 and 1 Cor. 12:13 we are "immersed" (baptized) in (Greek: "en") the Holy Spirit. The Greek "En" can shade off into "with" or "by" but "in" is its primary meaning and indeed the meaning most likely to go with "immersed."

Correct.

Compare the kjv with the revised version, or the asv that came out shortly after it, and some recent translations. The newer revised version uses "in" which, like you said, is it's primary meaning, but also makes more sense when we are looking at just the basic English and grammar understanding of being immersed "in" or "into" something.

Jesus told them they would be immersed "in" The Holy Spirit before He arose,.... which reflects them initially being born again at Pentecost, their Spiritual immersion.

 

[ARBITER01]

No, you are harmonizing with texts outside of Acts and thus missing the point that neither the concept of new birth nor the concept of Spirit regeneration are present in Luke-Acts.

Looking back on that statement,...... I'm not sure what you are really trying to say, but anyways,...

Let's go with the very first account in acts where a person is believing on The Lord Jesus but being filled of The Holy Spirit is presented later, Paul's conversion,.......

Act 9:11 And the Lord said to him, "Arise, go to the street that is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he is praying;
Act 9:12 and in a vision he saw a man, Ananias by name, coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive sight."

Obviously after his encounter with The Lord Jesus on the road, he has become a believer, hence why he is now praying and seeing predictive visions of things to come.

What does Ananias tell him?,....

Act 9:17 And Ananias went away and entered into the house. And putting hands on him he said, Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me, Jesus, the One who appeared to you in the way which you came, that you may see again and be filled of the Holy Spirit.

This was a subsequent event from Paul's encounter and conversion with Jesus. And the text is very specific about being "filled" of The Holy Spirit.

 

[Berserk]

Arbiter01L "Looking back on that statement,...... I'm not sure what you are really trying to say, but anyways,..."

Being regenerated by the Spirit is different from being filled by the Spirit, which can happen at any time.
But for both Paul and Luke, Spirit baptism is an initial experience of the Spirit (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 13:12), except for the 11 on whom Jesus had already breathed the Spirit (John 20:22-23).
For Paul, Spirit baptism incorporates the believer into the Body of Christ. So if Spirit baptism is a later work of the Spirit after regeneration and new birth, then born again believers regenerated by the Spirit would not yet be members of Christ's Body--something inconceivable to me.

In Acts Luke mentions neither new birth nor Spirit regeneration. Paul is "filled with the Spirit" after Anaias lays hands on him, but does not allow us to assume that Paul had already been regenerated by the Spirit through his vision.
The pattern in Acts expects speaking in tongues and prophsying as indicators of an initial experience of the Spirit, that is, of receiving the Spirit. In fact, Peter identifies the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost as prophesying (2:17). Simon the Magician's offer of money to impar the Spirit suggests that he too witnesses ecstatic speech. Most of the early converts--Jews, proselytes, and god-fearers attended local synogues before becomin Christians and receiving the Spirit. Their rabbis taught that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy, so these converts would expect ecstatic speech as an manifestation of their initial reception of the Spirit. Subsequent teaching expanded the doctrine of the Spirit so that this expectation no longer applied in Paul's later ministry.

So where does that leave modern evangelicalism? Clearly, most evangelicals don't expect a powerful immersion in the Spirit upon their conversion as Paul does. So I worry about how many of them have not actually been regenerated by the Spirit. To make sure, it is useful to treat Spirit baptism as a 2nd work of grace, even though neither Luke nor Paul (for different reasons) never intended it that way.

 

[ARBITER01]

So if Spirit baptism is a later work of the Spirit after regeneration and new birth,

I already see that we will talk past each other on the other subjects, but I wanted to just address this one section you mentioned then let it go. I'm not interested in rehashing some of the same points with you that I've already addressed with others.

Spiritual immersion is the born again experience, it is where The Holy Spirit applies the blood of Jesus to our human spirits and we are reborn into His likeness, and thereby added to the body of Christ.

There is not another Spiritual immersion after that (nor was I trying to say there was), only a Spiritual filling listed in scripture.

 

[tturt]

There's "...the doctrine of baptisms,..." (Heb 6:2).

Baptisms which means immersions and there's 3 main Biblical ones. Each one with outward behaviors resulting from this new, inward, spiritual state.

1 - By The Holy Spirit into Jesus reconcilng us to God (at salvation).
2- By another believer (water baptism) All 3 persons of the Godhead involved in this baptism as well.
3 - By Jesus who sends the promise of the Father baptists us "by," "with" and "in" the Holy Spirit and comes upon us (The Spirit baptism)

More details:
1 - By The Holy Spirit into Jesus which reconciles us to God is the baptism at salvation. Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ by believing in His death, burial, and resurrection. We will tell others of our salvation. (Rev 1:5; Matt 26:28; Mark 1:4-9, 16:16; Luk 3:3; 1 Cor 12:13; Acts 2:38; Gal 3:27, II Cor 5:18, Rom )10:9).

Water and Spirit baptism follows salvation - not in a set order though
2 - By another believer (water baptism) "... fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness," (Matt 3:6-16, 28:18-20; Acts 8:39, 10:47, 22:16; John 3:5).

3- - By Jesus who sends the promise of the Father baptists us "by," "with" and "in" the Holy Spirit (The Spirit baptism) includes when the Holy Spirit comes upon us, He endures us with power for service to Him, to be His witnesses, and to keep His Word. (Matt 3:11, 5:16; Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16; John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 8:14-17, 10:44-48, 11:16; I Cor 12:13, Luk 24:49, Eph 5:18, Acts 4:31; I John 3:24; Eze 36:25-28; John 14:25-27).

They're different yet
"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I John 5:7-8

 

[Berserk]

One last attempt at removing any confusion...

Arbiter 01: "Spiritual immersion is the born again experience, it is where The Holy Spirit applies the blood of Jesus to our human spirits and we are reborn into His likeness, and thereby added to the body of Christ."
But neither Luke (in Acts) nor Paul (1 Cor. 12:13) explicitly equates Spirit immersion (baptism) with being born again, which is an experience of regeneration by the Spirit. Indeed, unlike Paul, Luke-Acts does not recognize the Spirit's regenerative actions you describe at all.

Arbiter01: "There is not another Spiritual immersion after that..., only a Spiritual filling listed in scripture."

True, like water baptism, Spirit baptism is a once-for-all initiation rite (Acts 1:8). After Spirit baptism, the believer can repeatedly be "filled with the Spirit," but not rebaptized in the Spirit. For Luke, Spirit baptism (immersion) can be described as the Spirit falling on initiates, "just as it had fallen on us in the beginning (11:15)." Being filled with the Spirit after Spirit baptism is never described in this way. And for Luke, speaking in tongues is a standard manifestation of one's initial Spirit baptism (1:8 cp. 2:4; 10:44-47: 19:1-6). The Samaritan outpouring of the Spirit probably also included ecstatic speech because an impressed magician offered Peter money to convey the Spirit by laying on hands (8:16-18).

The question is, "Does Paul (1 Cor. 12:13) mean the same thing by Spirit baptism as Luke? Unlike Luke, 1 Corinthians offers no evidence that speaking in tongues is the normal expected evidence of Spirit baptism. And for Paul, Spirit baptism refers to one's initial reception of the Spirit because it incorporates the believer into the Body of Christ. Therefore, for Paul Spirit baptism is the Spirit's initial regenerative act (the born again experience). This is not true of Luke, who lacks any notion of the Spirit's regenerative role prior to Spirit baptism. Rather, Luke is influenced by the rabbinic view that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy, so that receiving the Spirit must be attested by ecstatic speech.

 

[ARBITER01]

One last attempt at removing any confusion...

Arbiter 01: "Spiritual immersion is the born again experience, it is where The Holy Spirit applies the blood of Jesus to our human spirits and we are reborn into His likeness, and thereby added to the body of Christ."
But neither Luke (in Acts) nor Paul (1 Cor. 12:13) explicitly equates Spirit immersion (baptism) with being born again, which is an experience of regeneration by the Spirit. Indeed, unlike Paul, Luke-Acts does not recognize the Spirit's regenerative actions you describe at all.

Arbiter01: "There is not another Spiritual immersion after that..., only a Spiritual filling listed in scripture."

True, like water baptism, Spirit baptism is a once-for-all initiation rite (Acts 1:8). After Spirit baptism, the believer can repeatedly be "filled with the Spirit," but not rebaptized in the Spirit. For Luke, Spirit baptism (immersion) can be described as the Spirit falling on initiates, "just as it had fallen on us in the beginning (11:15)." Being filled with the Spirit after Spirit baptism is never described in this way. And for Luke, speaking in tongues is a standard manifestation of one's initial Spirit baptism (1:8 cp. 2:4; 10:44-47: 19:1-6). The Samaritan outpouring of the Spirit probably also included ecstatic speech because an impressed magician offered Peter money to convey the Spirit by laying on hands (8:16-18).

The question is, "Does Paul (1 Cor. 12:13) mean the same thing by Spirit baptism as Luke? Unlike Luke, 1 Corinthians offers no evidence that speaking in tongues is the normal expected evidence of Spirit baptism. And for Paul, Spirit baptism refers to one's initial reception of the Spirit because it incorporates the believer into the Body of Christ. Therefore, for Paul Spirit baptism is the Spirit's initial regenerative act (the born again experience). This is not true of Luke, who lacks any notion of the Spirit's regenerative role prior to Spirit baptism. Rather, Luke is influenced by the rabbinic view that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy, so that receiving the Spirit must be attested by ecstatic speech.

“A man with an experience of God is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”

I think you are trying to reach your conclusions in scripture through intelligence rather than direct personal communion and experience with GOD as I and many others have over the years, hence the confusion.

It's sort of a doctrinal dumpster fire, so I'll leave you to your endeavors, wherever they may lead. Laters.