Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The baptism with the Holy Spirit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    As foudroyant had explained,
    Acts 19:6 was an example of receiving the Holy Spirit using the term "Came." ". . . the Holy Spirit came on them, . . . "
    It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

    We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit out theology.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
      I think the fire refers to his judgment in general, including his discipline over the believer
      You come close - baptism of fire is the kind of baptism that Christ said he was to be baptised with in Luke 12:50; The one he spoke of in Matthew 20:22 and Mark 10:38 - 39.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        You come close - baptism of fire is the kind of baptism that Christ said he was to be baptised with in Luke 12:50; The one he spoke of in Matthew 20:22 and Mark 10:38 - 39.
        Wow, that made me think I really don't understand baptism. I looked up "baptism" in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism It mentions "baptism by blood," which could be what tabibito referred to as "baptism of fire." How would "baptism" be defined based on the three Bible passages cited above? To refer to what Jesus went through as a ceremony seems wrong. I suspect most people would agree that an usual meaning of "baptism" is "a Christian rite of admission and adoption."
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
          It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

          We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit our theology.
          It fits mine.

          ". . . But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, . . ."
          . . . concerning . . . περι, about, superficially regarding the Philip's preaching of the gospel. The people of Samaria were then little later confirmed in the faith (Acts 8:14-17). But Simon was told for his lack of correctly understanding the grace of salvation, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (. . . gift of God . . . John 4:10).
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            Wow, that made me think I really don't understand baptism. I looked up "baptism" in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism It mentions "baptism by blood," which could be what tabibito referred to as "baptism of fire." How would "baptism" be defined based on the three Bible passages cited above? To refer to what Jesus went through as a ceremony seems wrong. I suspect most people would agree that an usual meaning of "baptism" is "a Christian rite of admission and adoption."
            I see... You are fully unacquainted with what is meant when a person undergoes a baptism of fire, for which any number of dictionaries will provide the etymology and meaning.
            Baptism of fire
            Meaning

            An ordeal or martyrdom. More recently, a soldier's first experience of battle.
            Origin

            The term refers back to actual martyrdoms by fire. The second of these is alluded to in the Bible; for example, this version in the King James Version, Matthew 3:11:

            I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

            the meaning most often used now is of a soldier's first experience of battle.
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              It fits mine.

              ". . . But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, . . ."
              . . . concerning . . . περι, about, superficially regarding the Philip's preaching of the gospel. The people of Samaria were then little later confirmed in the faith (Acts 8:14-17). But Simon was told for his lack of correctly understanding the grace of salvation, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (. . . gift of God . . . John 4:10).

              Well firstly, we were dealing with Acts 19, not Acts 8.

              But in any case, 'peri' in the Greek does not mean superficially. It is a preposition to describe what the teaching was about. That being said, if you are to take your interpretation (from what I understand of it), even in Acts 8 you have to deal with people not being 'confirmed in the faith' at the time of faith or baptism in the name of Jesus -- rather it required the laying on of hands"

              17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

              So, it seems that taking such an interpretation would nullify any belief in 'faith alone' -- rather it would require the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit as a confirmation of faith. Would it not? Or am I missing something about your interpretation?


              Were the people not saved until the apostles laid their hands upon them?



              [I should also note that 'the gift of God' in Acts 8 is not referring to John 4. There are a whole host of reasons why not...but basically it comes down to context. 'THE gift' (there is a definite article) refers to the Holy Spirit]
              Last edited by phat8594; 07-14-2014, 11:00 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                Well firstly, we were dealing with Acts 19, not Acts 8.

                But in any case, 'peri' in the Greek does not mean superficially. It is a preposition to describe what the teaching was about. That being said, if you are to take your interpretation (from what I understand of it), even in Acts 8 you have to deal with people not being 'confirmed in the faith' at the time of faith or baptism in the name of Jesus -- rather it required the laying on of hands"
                Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

                We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit out theology.
                Yes, you were making reference to 19:6. I gave another reference as to an example of the use of laying on of hands in regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.
                [There is a difference between 'peri' and 'eis.' So understand there is a difference between believing about something and believing in something. your agreement is not required. This happens to be my view, maybe not yours.]




                So, it seems that taking such an interpretation would nullify any belief in 'faith alone' -- rather it would require the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit as a confirmation of faith. Would it not? Or am I missing something about your interpretation?
                My understanding is God gives the Holy Spirit to those whom He saves. Those two examples Acts 19:6 and Acts 8:17 where the Apostles presided over this. The simple required "faith alone in Christ alone" is not denied by this, as I understand it.

                Were the people not saved until the apostles laid their hands upon them?
                In those two examples, they were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit, which so happened to be by way of apostolic laying on of hands.


                [I should also note that 'the gift of God' in Acts 8 is not referring to John 4. There are a whole host of reasons why not...but basically it comes down to context. 'THE gift' (there is a definite article) refers to the Holy Spirit]
                ". . . Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου], and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . " -- John 4:10.

                ". . . he gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου] . . . ." -- Acts 8:20.

                ". . . In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) " -- John 7:37-39.

                ". . . And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -- Revelation 22:17.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Yes, you were making reference to 19:6. I gave another reference as to an example of the use of laying on of hands in regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.


                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  [There is a difference between 'peri' and 'eis.' So understand there is a difference between believing about something and believing in something. your agreement is not required. This happens to be my view, maybe not yours.]
                  .
                  You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

                  If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

                  I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.


                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  My understanding is God gives the Holy Spirit to those whom He saves. Those two examples Acts 19:6 and Acts 8:17 where the Apostles presided over this. The simple required "faith alone in Christ alone" is not denied by this, as I understand it.
                  That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking)

                  14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  ". . . Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου], and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . " -- John 4:10.

                  ". . . he gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου] . . . ." -- Acts 8:20.

                  ". . . In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) " -- John 7:37-39.

                  ". . . And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -- Revelation 22:17.
                  I'm a little confused at the point you are trying to make here...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                    You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

                    If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

                    I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.
                    The text does not say they believed in 'eis' the gospel. It says they believed Philip. And what they believed regarding Philip's preaching of the gospel, the kingdom and of Jesus Christ, was about what he had preached. They were baptized in 'eis' Jesus name. But what they had believed was Philip, not precisely in 'eis' Christ (1 John 5:1). Otherwise the Apostles would not have needed to have come. Now this is my understanding on this matter. Can you see the difference of how you are understanding it and how I am understanding it?



                    That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking)
                    see 2 Corinthians 11:4. Philip, no doubt was preaching the genuine gospel. Not everyone understands things the same way. Which, unfortunately, because of sin, gives rise to false teachings. Note the error of Simon, both before and after he believed Philip (v.13).





                    I'm a little confused at the point you are trying to make here...
                    It was my understanding you were making the argument that "THE gift of the Holy Spirit" was not applicable in John 4:10. It is my understanding that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is the same thing as the "gift of Christ" (Ephesians 4:7; Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12). The Holy Spirit being the water of life. Without which one is not yet saved.
                    Last edited by 37818; 07-18-2014, 07:04 PM.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                      Acts 19 is an example of where belief and the 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit are noted as separate events. It seems to me that the explanations in the post assume dispensations. In other words the explanations don't necessarily explore it exegetically, but theologically (based on prior theology).


                      John 20 seems to me much the same. Thomas not being there seems an odd reason to assume that they really didn't receive the Holy Spirit. The tenses just don't seem to match up with a 'prophetic' stand point.


                      (please note I am not one saying that people are not sealed with the Holy Spirit when they have faith)
                      In terms of Luke specifically describing as to when the Holy Spirit was received we have:
                      a. Acts 2:4 - This does not apply today for this is when the NT Church began.
                      b. Acts 2:38 - This does not apply today for only the Jews during this time period were told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
                      c. Acts 8 and Acts 19 - This does not apply today for there are no living apostles today that saw the resurrected Lord.

                      Bruce: The sequence of the component elements in Christian initiation varies from one occasion to another in Acts. Peter's hearers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost repent, are baptized, and receive the Spirit (2:38, 41); the Samaritans evangelized by Philip believed and are baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus", but do not receive the Spirit until apostolic hands are laid on them (8:12, 14-17); Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit while they are still listening to the message and are then baptized (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).


                      What takes place in Acts 10 - receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith is the standard for today.
                      Last edited by foudroyant; 07-20-2014, 07:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by phat8594 View Post


                        You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

                        If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

                        I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.


                        That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking)


                        Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
                        That is a fair and reasonable translation.
                        However, what they actually believed is a compound {the Philip-preaching}, and it is dative, with a leading dative article τω. Thus, they believed in the Philip preaching περι/surrounding the gospel. Natural English would have the preaching centred on the gospel.
                        The preaching is particularised. Not just anyone's preaching, but Philip's. Implicitly, other preaching has been rejected. It could be another person's gospel of Christ or something opposed to the gospel; the sentence doesn't address that issue. So, checking the prior text - they had paid heed to Simon's teaching, but now accept the Philip-teaching.
                        With all that:
                        but when they believed in the Philip-preaching pertaining to the kingdom of God and the name of Christ, they were baptised, both men and women.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
                          I see no reason to believe that this sequence was established only for the first century church: accordingly, it would seem that the expected order is to receive the Holy Spirit subsequent to baptism, but it would by no means be a fixed procedure even today.

                          Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't recall any Biblical statement to the effect that Ananias was ever appointed to apostleship, yet here Paul is baptised into the Holy Spirit at the hand of Ananias. Certainly Acts 9:10 shows only that Ananias was a disciple.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It's not for the entire first century Church. It was for the Jews of that time period of the first century Church. There are no clear cut examples given to us where anyone else was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord and thereby immediately receive the Holy Spirit.

                            The text in Acts 9 is not clear as to precisely when Paul received the Holy Spirit. There are some who believe (including me) it did not take place until he was water baptized.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                              It's not for the entire first century Church. It was for the Jews of that time period of the first century Church. There are no clear cut examples given to us where anyone else was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord and thereby immediately receive the Holy Spirit.

                              The text in Acts 9 is not clear as to precisely when Paul received the Holy Spirit. There are some who believe (including me) it did not take place until he was water baptized.
                              Re-examining the text - yes. The possibility exists. The report of what Ananias said is ambiguous.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The text does not say they believed in 'eis' the gospel. It says they believed Philip. And what they believed regarding Philip's preaching of the gospel, the kingdom and of Jesus Christ, was about what he had preached. They were baptized in 'eis' Jesus name. But what they had believed was Philip, not precisely in 'eis' Christ (1 John 5:1). Otherwise the Apostles would not have needed to have come. Now this is my understanding on this matter. Can you see the difference of how you are understanding it and how I am understanding it?
                                I think you are still mixing up the grammar. You are seeing the 'about' as describing how they believed rather than what Philip preached. The 'about' is discussing the Philip's preaching, not their believing.

                                As for your reasoning as to why the apostles came, I really feel like you are stretching the text quite a bit to make it fit that meaning. After all, how would you normally understand 'receiving the word of God', 'baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus', and 'disciples'? The text gives absolutely no reason to believe that they did not believe.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-20-2021, 08:19 AM
                                14 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 09-07-2021, 04:03 AM
                                12 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-03-2021, 10:54 AM
                                21 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 08-20-2021, 10:14 AM
                                27 responses
                                146 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-05-2021, 02:19 PM
                                63 responses
                                298 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X