OK, what's your take on John 20:22 ...
Just trying to follow your logic.. they had been baptized in water thru John B to form the understanding that he (John) was preparing them for the one to follow. So that’s the baptism of repentance, the light of the preaching. John B did not represent the OC / OT by any means (the only logic that could include that was if he were from the Essenes who were dead set against temple activity. ) But the people were baptized unto repentance for which they were set aside (their minds) to the teaching that Him to follow was to prepare them in fire baptism, which happened at Pentecost, to which Paul referred them. They that were at the baptism of John needed not to renew their repentance but became responsible to follow Him to acquire the baptism of fire. Converted at understanding (breath) and equipped for service at Pentecostal refreshings.
Da more feasible would be my experience
Yes, many believers have simultaneously received the Holy Spirit INSIDE and UPON.
They were believers in the sense that the Apostles were believers before the day of Pentecost, but at the day of Pentecost they went from the Old Covenant which was cancelled at the death of Jesus, to the New Covenant which came into force on the Day of Pentecost. From the day of Pentecost all new believers were converted and baptised with the Spirit at the same time. It was just that the Ephesian disciples were in a believing state according to the Old Covenant, but as soon as Paul brought them up to date, they experienced their own Pentecost.
My view is that the Holy Spirit and all his potential was indwelling you all the time over the five years, and it was after that period that you realised that you were filled with the Holy Spirit and able to release Him out of you.
That's just a play on words. The "upon" was an Old Covenant view of the Holy Spirit where the Holy Spirit came upon a person as a special anointing for a specific time and task and then the Spirit lifted off the person again. But the New Covenant view is that the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within the believer and this happens at conversion. The second blessing notion comes out of a confusion between the Old Covenant reception of the Holy Spirit, and the New Covenant indwelling.
Some of Paul, Apollos, Sephus it all depends on where the readers are being pointed to. All of them should be pointing to Christ. Simple.
I think that it is a lot simpler to accept that one has the indwelling Holy Spirit with all the gifts right from the moment of conversion to Christ, and then all that needs to happen is to allow the Holy Spirit to flow out of us with the gifts as He wills.
Paul is speaking of the baptism into Christ, which is our salvation.
For many years I subscribed to traditional Pentecostal doctrine that taught that the baptism with the Spirit came after conversion. But after carefully doing exegesis of the specific passages, I discovered that Christian conversion involved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. What finally convinced me was what Paul said in Galatians - "Having begin with the Spirit, why are you wanting to continue in the flesh?" (my paraphrase). I thought about why Paul said that, because he was clearly speaking about conversion to Christ which was according to faith alone in Christ, and he termed is as "beginning with the Spirit". This showed me that when a person is converted, they receive the Spirit. Then I read an author who asked the question, "How come the Spirit indwells a believer at conversion, then goes away, and comes back to give a second blessing?" I could then see that once the Holy Spirit indwells a person, He is there to stay.
And the Church today has the same wonderful power and impact as the early Church? I don't think so. Corinth was a problem, sure. Pentecostals who think that being baptised in the Holy Spirit is the same as showing the fruit of the Spirit are deceived also. The Holy Spirit is a gift. Being born again requires repentance. We need the Baptism of the Holy Spirit just as much as the early church. Making a big deal of tongues talking is not Biblical. It is the least of the gifts. Dismissing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a bigger mistake.
It's not just Charismatics. The so-called Toronto Blessing was a complete deception, Pentecostals and Charismatics alike. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous. We who are born again have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We can receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion or later on (about 3-1/2 years in my case). Lack of correct teaching, overemphasising gifts instead of fruit are commonplace. That does not mean that the gift is invalid. There is also a great temptation to spiritual pride with those who have the gifts. Watchman Nee encouraged Christians to get established in Christ before seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He saw the dangers.
All born again believers have the Holy spirit. Faith is a fruit of the Holy spirit. But the Baptism served its purpose until the NT canon became completed. Paul said the gifts were only partial, but scripture is complete. And it replaced the Apostles and the Baptism. So today we receive the fullness of the Spirit through repentance Acts 2:38.
Yes, a common point of view which my first church held. Charismatics and Pentecostals were considered demon possessed in many evangelical churches. I had the blessing of travelling widely and meeting all kinds of Christians, courtesy of the military. I met Pentecostals and most other denominations. After much soul-searching I realised that I was lacking the spiritual power of the Pentecostals that I knew. I sought and received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Christmas Eve, 1974. It was a blessed experience but there were no physical manifestations. I don't know how anyone can claim that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was rendered unnecessary. Charles Wesley thought it essential and I am told that John Wesley was of the same opinion.
You didn't receive the Baptism. But probably the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
