• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

What is the baptism of the holy spirit all about?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by A New Day, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +499
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Here again you repeat what I just refuted, albeit with more verbiage. It wasn't a "corporate" event when Paul met a few disciples in Acts 19 and "when Paul laid hands on them, the Spirit fell on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." The whole church didn't prophesy at that moment, it was clearly an outpouring upon some select individuals, just like the OT outpourings. For instance in Moses' day an outpouring was given to 70 elders who immediately began to prophesy upon receiving the outpouring. If you want to call it "corporate" in virtue of the obvious fact that we are all members of one body, I suppose you're free to do that, but in the context of this discussion it tends to obscure the clearly individualistic nature of those outpourings.

    And your claim that the Spirit was outpoured upon the whole church once and for all - in addition to contradicting Acts 10 where the Spirit fell again - really doesn't make much sense. I wasn't born yet, back on Pentecost. How can the Spirit have been poured out on those who did not yet exist? This is eisegesis, not exegesis - what's driving your conclusions is some kind of a theology of "the church age" which supposedly began at Pentecost, you superimpose this dispensationalism upon Acts instead of letting the text speak for itself.

    The reality is - as the Reformers were quick to point out - the NT church isn't under a different age than the OT church. There is ONE Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments (see Galatians 3) which preceded the law (verse 17) - and the law did not even alter or modify it in the slightest (verse 15-b).

    OT saints were NOT saved by the law, they were saved by Christ's sacrifice retroactively. I don't get a better cross than Abraham got and therefore I don't get better grace (better outpourings) than what the OT saints got. Paul is clear on this point. In Galatians 3 he argues that we receive the promised Holy Spirit as HEIRS of Abraham. To inherit isn't to get something better than what your parents/ancestors had - it is rather for them to pass on to you what they ALREADY possessed and enjoyed.

    There is no "new covenant" therefore - the covenants operated on the terms of the (Abrahamic) Covenant of Grace and served to further explicate the terms of that covenant. This is called progressive revelation. In particular the so-called "new covenant" was not even made with the Gentiles in the first place, it was made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" (as the author of Hebrews affirmed). But it is documented in the NT because the terms CLARIFY AND EXPLICATE the High-Priest element of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace.

    Your notion of a new "church age" is a delusion refuted by the Protestant Reformers 500 years ago.
     
  2. Jpark

    Jpark Well-Known Member

    +163
    Christian
    Private
    1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal/pledge to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    Hebrews 10:22 let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

    It can happen many times.
    It can be invoked but can also come and go like in the days of old (John 3:8).

    Now I'll ask a question. What is the nature of Spirit baptism?

    1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood:

    1 Peter 1:21 Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth (through the Spirit) so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply/constantly from a pure heart.

    John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
     
  3. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +18,044
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    And this wasn't a "baptism with the Holy Spirit" either. The laying on of hands wasn't a baptism, it's closer to Chrismation. Which is part of the Baptismal rite in most historic Churches.

    Again, let's look at what the biblical texts explicitly say: John said One was coming after him that would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus, before ascending, told His followers to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Spirit to come, that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. This took place on Pentecost.

    The Baptism with the Holy Spirit isn't about a personal experience of the Spirit, it's about fulfillment of what the Lord said--that after He ascended the Father would send the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. What transpired on Pentecost wasn't just another experience of the Spirit like that of the Prophets and Saints of the Old Testament, it was the inaugural advent of Christ anointing His Church to go and do the mission He had commissioned it to do--to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and instructing them in all the Lord had commanded. Pentecost was a world-changing moment.

    When Christ died, Christ died for all. Yes? He died not only for those who had come before and those then; He came for you and for me. When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death and resurrection and joined to Him. To be born again into Christ's Church, to be made a member of Christ, is to be joined to the whole. When I say the Spirit was poured out on all flesh (which is what the Apostle Peter says, quoting Joel the Prophet) and thus was for the whole Church I mean just this: That for then and for all future ages the Spirit had been given once and for all, to all who are baptized into Christ receive the Spirit, even as the Apostle proclaimed that very day,

    "Repent and be baptized, all of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is for you and your children, and to all who are far off, all whom the Lord our God will call."

    The Spirit was poured out, given for all. We do not need to have our own individual, private Pentecost to receive the Holy Spirit, but only to receive the free gift which is for all, Holy Baptism by which we are made members of Christ Jesus.

    I'm not a Dispensationalist, but it seems silly to ignore the reality that something world-shattering and world-changing took place two thousand years ago. All that had been promised and longed for from the days of Abraham and Moses, through the Prophets and until John the Baptist was coming and had come to pass. Messiah had come and brought with Him His kingdom.

    You're accusing me of a Dispensationalism that I do not embrace.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  4. Nanopants

    Nanopants Guest

    +0
    Why must we always attempt to put God into a box? I have no problem with the significance of Pentecost. I do have a problem with any idea that suggests an individual, today, cannot be baptized in the Spirit. It seems to suggest that one must obey the rules of your church in order to partake in the benefit of that baptism at Pentecost, even if they never really experience anything at all.
     
  5. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +499
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Not a baptism of the Spirit? That's a laugh. As I described in earlier posts, Acts 1 and 2 predicts and fulfills and outpouring/baptism for witnessing/prophesying, for "I shall pour out my Spirit and they SHALL prophesy". Luke is telling us the PARADIGM (the model) for witnessing. Then in Acts 19 the Spirit falls again on some disciples and here again they prophesy - and your conclusion? It was NOT a Lukan baptism of the Spirit? You might want to brush up on your hermeneutics given your penchant for overlooking the obvious.

    Yes, He promised His followers and outpouring and then fulfilled it. And? So? God did the same thing with Moses. First He told him, "I am going to pour out the Spirit on those 70 elders" and then lo and behold, He later fulfilled it. God ACTUALLY did what He promised. Wow, what a shock.

    Why, because you say so? Because you are determined to read a "new church age" into it? Sorry, I prefer to believe Paul who tells us the covenant terms haven't changed across the testaments (Gal 3:15-b).

    Right, the same mission that the prophet Jonah was already fulfilling in the OLD testament when he preached/prophesied to Nineveh - and they repented. Sorry, but the notion of a new "church age" just doesn't exist in the Bible.

    Already refuted. Galatians 3 indicates the OT saints had the same Holy Spirit.

    And then Peter baptized them - but no record of an outpouring! The real problem here is that you (and most of the church) don't understand the nature of biblical Promise. The Promise to Abraham was, with respect to the next life, unconditional (by virtue of the atonement). But in THIS life the promises are granted somewhat conditionally. For instance Israel was promised Canaan - in Christ they will someday inherit the earth (unconditionally) but in this life it has been conditional. They had to go up and TAKE POSSESSION of he promised land. Peter is reaffirming the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace. The Promise - in this context it refers to the Spirit of prophesy/witnessing - "is to you, and to your children, and to all whom the Lord your God shall call" - but typically subject to the CONDITION of our appropriating it, except where God by His grace pour it out upon us undeservedly. So yes, the individual DOES need his own Pentecost(s). Jesus put it like this, "How much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" It's conditional, my friend, it comes by prayer (as Luke demonstrated over and over and over and over again). It has NOTHING to do with a new church age.

    Baloney. Abraham wasn't waiting for the Holy Spirit - he already had those outpourings and I can prove it. As far as the arrival of the Messiah, I agree that Abraham longed to see it, but that has nothing to do with Pentecost and Spirit-baptism. Christ did not arrive on Pentecost.
     
  6. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    But what if God himself made the rules? What if God himself created the church? What of God himself sustains and corrects the church? And finally, what if God himself made a community within which one ought to find salvation and outside of which he made no ordinary provisions for salvation?
     
  7. Nanopants

    Nanopants Guest

    +0
    Well then we'd better not break them. The concept of jurisdiction may be relevant here.

    He did.

    He will correct the church. I hope He sustains it.

    Not all of us have ordinary experiences. If I am outside of the visible church, having experienced the reality God individually like Abraham, shouldn't I remain faithful to that call?
     
  8. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    Nanopants, in the new testament folk who came to faith by extraordinary means, such as saint Paul, joined themselves to the church eventually. The Ephesian disciples too were drawn into the church by saint Paul after they were baptised by him in Jesus' name. I think there is a pattern in the scriptures pointing to inclusion with the people of God - the community of faith.
     
  9. Nanopants

    Nanopants Guest

    +0
    That's why I am here ;]

    But seriously, I'm open to the idea but I feel the need to carefully consider it.
     
  10. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    Give it a great deal of thought, it is not an easy decision. And do not be rushed by what other folk say, myself included.
     
  11. Tellastory

    Tellastory Hebrews 13:13

    782
    +37
    Christian
    Single
    It was not the gift of prophecy nor any of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, but THE gift of THE Holy Spirit which is the baptism with the Spirit by Jesus Christ at their salvation.

    If one reads the event at Acts 2, the charismatic gift that accompanied the gift of the Holy Spirit at their salvation was the gift of tongues.

    Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

    Being manifested public, tongues served as a sign to unbelievers. Peter would not refer to the gift of tongues since that would be signifying that salvation has to be accompanied with that gift of tongues, but not so. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit as He bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. The promise of the Spirit is received by faith in Jesus Christ, not by sight for the believers to use tongues as a sign that they are saved.

    Paul explained how God uses tongues in serving as a sign to unbelievers in speaking unto the people.

    1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

    Paul went on to explain that when God manifest tongues in the assembly as such manifestations are to profit the body withal, tongues was not a stand alone gift because it needs interpretation for it to be edifying to the church. If there was no interpretation, the tongue speaker was to be silent because what he is saying is not a manifestation of the Spirit because it came with no interpretation and thus what he was saying, the speaker knows what he is saying as speaking unto himself as God understood what he was saying as speaketh unto God ( not that he was speaking TO God, but God understood what He was saying ) thus why that tongue speaker was instructed to be silent in verse 28 because he was a visiting foreignor speaking out of place in the church. Otherwise, Paul would be a hypocrite for saying not to forbid to speak in tongues at the end of the chapter, but yet emphasized it to be done decently and in order as God's gift of tongues will come with interpretation unless othewise understood by a foreignor.

    What Peter was referring to in Acts 11 of the gift of the Holy Spirit as Peter had received at Pentecost, he actually meant the baptism with the Holy Spirit given by Jesus Christ at their particular moment of salvation.

    The Ethopian eunuch had received the gift of the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues because there was no point for God to manifest that gift to speak to anyone around him other than Philip who was a believer already.
     
  12. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +499
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Already refuted in earlier post. It was not the gift of tongues. You'll need to address my arguments - it was clearly the gift of prophecy. See the arguments, please.
     
  13. Tellastory

    Tellastory Hebrews 13:13

    782
    +37
    Christian
    Single
    Being how they were Jewish converts from other foreign lands, it would stand to reason that they would also know Hebrews since they were dwelling in Jerusalem.

    Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

    So yes, when Peter had spoken finally, it was in Hebrews as they all did understood Hebrews, and thus Peter spoke as the Spirit led him to speak as it would be the gift of prophesy.

    But what had happened before Peter's speech to them all was God manifesting the gift of tongues to speak unto the people in their native tongue as a sign to them and to draw them out to hear Peter's speech in Hebrews.
     
  14. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +12,071
    Christian
    Married
    Yeah, but...Cornelius. It appears everyone Cornelius had gathered into his household were believers. His speaking in tongues was more for the benefit of Peter (and then later) the rest of the disciples. It was that particular event specifically acknowledged by both Peter at the moment and then later the rest of the disciples as the indisputable proof that salvation was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

    It appears that nothing less would have convinced them. This may have been the case with the Samaritans that had become believers by Philip as well--the Holy Spirit proved they were not beyond His salvation. However, because Jesus had already gone to Samaria Himself, it did not require the extremely detailed proof that it required for Cornelius.

    But I agree with the case in point of the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip was fully prepared to accept him. This also bears some consideration, because bringing both the eunuch and the Roman into the Body of Christ was fulfillment of the prophesy of Isaiah 56. Philip, as a Hellenist Jew, might have been personally more willing to have evangelized non-Hebrews than Peter--who clearly took extreme measures by the Holy Spirit to get him to Cornelius.
     
  15. A New Day

    A New Day Newbie

    701
    +12
    Christian
    I thank everyone for what they have to say, but I already had a difficulty to understand the topic and with new thoughts some things got more complicated for me, I did not put my questions in order for no reason, so if we can limit our ideas to my questions about baptism of the holy spirit it would be nice to not lose the trail of the topic. alright?

    Because a lot of what was said do not look like they are direct answers and I did not know what is an answer to what question and if it was an answer in the first place, so I would like to thank those that had direct answers to my questions and of course I thank everyone for what they have to say.

    Another thing is that after that I read the posts new questions arise and I would like to ask them, and if someone does not prefer to answer now, for example if he wants to have a further understanding before that he answers, then I respect that.
     
  16. A New Day

    A New Day Newbie

    701
    +12
    Christian
    To Nanopants

    in the beginning you said that it is not a persistent feeling
    And after that you said that it is a persistent effect.

    I do not want to understand what you said wrong, did you mean that when someone receive/received the holy spirit, if they were not in a stand with God then the holy spirit would be in vain for them that it will not manifest itself in and through the person? is that what you mean?
     
  17. Tellastory

    Tellastory Hebrews 13:13

    782
    +37
    Christian
    Single
    But Peter had already said that he needed no convincing.

    Acts 10:24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends. 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. 27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. 28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

    And yet, this was written:

    44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

    I read this with the understanding that it was new believers and not everyone that heard the word as if saved believers were receiving the Holy Ghost again, but those that heard the word for the first time.

    Seeing the testimony that the saved believers from Jewish backgrounds were astonished, it stands to reason that they needed convincing testimony from God even though Peter did not, because he was already convinced earlier by the vision. So I reckon in one sense, it did serve as a sign towards the unbelief that God would save the Gentiles as He has done the Jews.

    It still shows that the sign was towards the other and not towards the recipients.

    Peter was still under the direct commandment to preach to the House of Israel first and not to the Gentiles.

    Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    After being told to wait in Jerusalem until Christ sends His power from on high which happened on the day of Pentecost, we can see why Peter may need some divine intervention as he would be sticking to his marching others otherwise.
     
  18. A New Day

    A New Day Newbie

    701
    +12
    Christian
    To zeke37

    so do you believe that speaking in tongues last happened at the early church for the purpose of teaching the bible and that it does not happen today?

    Second about the baptism of the holy spirit, what is your explanation of that? And how do you relate speaking in tongues to the baptism of the holy spirit?
     
  19. A New Day

    A New Day Newbie

    701
    +12
    Christian
    To JAL

    Unfortunately I hear more than one thought about the speaking in tongues, others say that it is a language of angels to speak with God and others say that it is about speaking in different human tongues/languages and others say something else.
    Thank you anyway for your story with speaking in tongues.

    you said
    Do you care to explain that please? the apostles literally were speaking in multiple languages, do you think that they did not understand what they were speaking? What do you think?

    Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in foreign languages according as the Spirit gave them words to utter.
     
  20. A New Day

    A New Day Newbie

    701
    +12
    Christian
    for knee-v

    your post made me to realize that the baptism with the holy spirit is the baptism after all, and that the baptism in the orthodox church is with water and with the holy spirit.

    Thank you for that but I have a question please:

    Nanopants said
    So the question is: when someone is baptized today, how can he know that he is truthfully baptized with the holy spirit?

    MoreCoffee said:
    Do you think that that could be right?
     
Loading...