Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

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 theists. 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” 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, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not for Today

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Dave L View Post

    The bunch I encountered tried to raise people from the dead...yikes.
    Nothing inherently wrong with that. Craig Keener has documented several raisings in his various "Miracles" books.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Let's go, Brandon

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      Nothing inherently wrong with that. Craig Keener has documented several raisings in his various "Miracles" books.
      I don't think it is genuine. They did the same in the 70s in Indonesia with not one shred of proof. Everyone has a camera phone today but not one video.

      Comment


      • #78
        Baptism in the Holy Spirit was a thing too. This was an event in addition to salvation, a much more advanced level. Apparently, the one receiving the baptism would obtain a greater level of patience than those who weren't and they were able to love more deeply. Although, the only way I could ever tell was that the ones who claimed to have undergone this acted more charismatic. There was never any discernable greater love amongst them. I never really understood the point.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          "Baptism in the Holy Spirit," "the Holy Spirit falling on a person," and "a person receiving the Holy Spirit" all refer to the same process: they all mean the same thing.
          But of course you'd need to observe usage in context to see if that consistently holds true outside of Acts.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Let's go, Brandon

          Comment


          • #80
            I think some of this has been covered, by tabibito if no one else. Some responses to DaveL:

            Regarding Post 1

            -- There is no reason to start with Acts 8. Baptism in the Spirit is not even mentioned there, so it is bizarre to treat it as the "key" to understanding Spirit-baptism. (Side-note: "Spirit-baptism" is my own term. It does not itself occur in Scripture. NOR DOES "BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT." Speaking pedantically, only the verb form of "baptize" occurs in direct conjunction with "spirit.")

            -- The "gift of the Spirit" in Acts 2:38 is the same as the "promise" in 2:33 and 1:4. That promise was that they would be "baptized in the Holy Spirit," and that is the promise that is available to all who repent and are baptized. It was not some special gift reserved for the Apostles, or else the passage Peter cited from Joel would be a lie. In the final age, the prophetic Spirit would be poured out on "all" flesh, not just a handful or two, and would equally include men and women in His empowering.

            -- Heb. 2:4 says nothing about "apostles." The word, "apostles" occurs nowhere in Hebrews. You are reading your own ideas into the text. The text says that the Spirit supernaturally confirms the message, not the messengers, consistent with Mark 16:17-18 (which only matters if we regard the "long ending" as canonical), Rom. 15:19, 1 Cor. 2:4, 1 Thes. 1:5. AFAICT, only one verse -- 2 Cor. 12:12 -- talks about "signs" confirming genuine apostleship, and it does not say what those signs were/are, nor that the *only* purpose for signs is confirmation of true apostleship.

            -- Scripture does treat Phillip's two adventures in Acts 8 differently, but the words used don't support your case. It never says that Peter and John caused the Samaritans to be baptized in the Spirit. (That is, it does not use any form of the word, "baptize" in regard to the Spirit.) The Spirit was "given," "came upon" the Samaritans, and they "received" the Spirit. In the case of the Eunuch, the text makes no mention of the Spirit at all. So there is no textual basis in the context to assume that in both cases people "received" the "giftt" of the Spirit, but in only one was someone "baptized" in the Spirit.

            -- The Cornelius event (Acts 10-11) is the only place in Acts where "baptize(d) in/with the Spirit" occurs after Pentecost, and even there (the Cornelius case) it is used only retrospectively, looking back at the Great Commission instructions in Acts 1 and their initial fulfillment in Acts 2. As in the Pentecost case, the falling of the Spirit did not require the laying on of the apostles' hands, so that step is not always needed.

            -- Scripture never teaches that the purpose of glossolalia and prophecy was to "provide God's word," so the completion of the canon is irrelevant. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 does indeed equip us for "every good work," and the modifier "artios" does, per NET Bible, suggest completeness. But if we're going to use "Scripture" to include more than the Tanakh (which was the primary meaning for much of the NT era), then we might as well assume Paul agreed with the author of 2 Pet. 3:15 that at least some of his own writings were Scripture, including 1 Cor. 13 and Eph. 4 In that case, we would learn that all the gifts will remain extant until the Lord's return. (That seems to be the most likely interpretation of the wording of both passages.)

            -- 1 Cor. 12 is the only place outside of the Gospels and Acts where the word "baptize" occurs directly grammatically linked with "in... Spirit." Paul applied it there to all believers.

            -- "So we can say scripture directly supports the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for those ministered to by an apostle. That it was not for all. The Baptism with the Holy Spirit passed into history with the rest of the apostles Hebrews 2:4 because only they provided it as a sign of their authority. And that scripture replaced the fragmentary gifts of tongues and prophecy with the completed revelation. And we can confidently say believers from Pentecost on have the gift of Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38, but not the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Only for the apostle’s and those they laid their hands on." -- No, we actually can't say any of that, if we look at what the texts and contexts actually say.

            ----------------------

            In regard to Post 21:

            What you are saying is the direct opposite of what Scripture teaches. There is no evidence the glossolalists knew what they were saying, except on the atypical occasions when the separate gift of "interpretation of tongues" also operated via the same person. In fact, Paul explicitly says that when he prays in tongues, his mind is unproductive (1 Cor. 14:14), and that the person speaking glossa speaks "mysteries" that NO ONE understands.

            ------------------------

            In regard to the sword you draw more eagerly than that of the Spirit, viz. the word of God -- I'll bet it's a howling hoot when Curt visits a Pentecostal church.

            The portions you've cited seem reminiscent of the dubious methodology of Hank Hanegraaff and Dan McConnell, said methodology pointed out by Rob Bowman in The Word-Faith Controversy.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Let's go, Brandon

            Comment


            • #81
              I do have to give him credit for bringing some new toys to the game, though. Usually the tongues-depressors reach into the familiar grab-bag and pull out, "They're not real languages!" "It's all just emotionalism!" "KUNDALINI!!!!!"
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Let's go, Brandon

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                Baptism in the Holy Spirit was a thing too. This was an event in addition to salvation, a much more advanced level. Apparently, the one receiving the baptism would obtain a greater level of patience than those who weren't and they were able to love more deeply. Although, the only way I could ever tell was that the ones who claimed to have undergone this acted more charismatic. There was never any discernable greater love amongst them. I never really understood the point.
                The discussion has fizzled a bit, so I'll take this opportunity to bloviate.

                In my Profile here, I've labeled myself "Full Gospel Christian," which in my mind alludes to Rom. 15:19. When speaking casually, I'm also fine with "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic." I suppose I'm also ok with "Empowered Evangelical," a term I believe was introduced by John Wimber and the Vineyard 35-40 years ago, except that it's cumbersome.

                When being pedantic, none of those terms is ideal, because I differ with each -- especially the first and the last -- on details.

                "Pentecostals" take their label from Acts 2, and much of their characteristic doctrines and practices center there.

                "Charismatics" center more around 1 Cor. 12-14, but increasingly their doctrines are becoming nearly indistinguishable from Pentecostals.

                "Empowered Evangelicals" seem to focus more on the accounts in the Gospels, so of all the groups, they have the least emphasis on glossolalia.


                Pentecostals believe that Jesus was conceived and born of the Spirit as the Son of God (Luke 1). Thirty years later, separately and subsequently, so to speak, the Spirit came "upon" Him at His baptism (Matt. 3 / Mark 1 / Luke 3 / John 1). In all these cases, the idea of "baptizing in the Spirit" was explicit. Directly proceeding from this, He went through a time of testing (Matt. 4 / Luke 4), then returned in the "power of the Spirit" (Luke 4) and displayed prophetic insight (John 1) and performed His first miracle (John 2). He stood before a crowd and quoted from the OT (Is. 61) to justify and characterize His upcoming ministry.

                Pentecostals believe that the "Receive the Spirit" event in John's version of the Great Commission in John 20 was intended to remind of Gen. 2:7 and possibly Eze. 37:9; it marks the point where they were restored to life by being "born from above," "born of the Spirit" (John 3) becoming children of God (John 1). They note that Luke's two versions of the Great Commission (Luke 24, Acts 1) there are mentions of "power" and "Spirit" coming down upon from above, and this seems explicitly linked to their soon-coming baptism in the Spirit. Fifty days later in Acts 2, separately and subsequently, so to speak, to their being "born again" in John 20, the Spirit fell upon them as promised, and they began speaking in languages unknown to them. Peter stood before a crowd and quoted from the OT (Joel 2) to justify and explain what had just happened (as an example of prophetic speech) and characterize the Church's upcoming ministry.

                Pentecostals believe that being baptized in the Spirit helps the believer overcome sin because it was not until *after* the Spirit came upon Jesus that the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to directly face the devil's tests. They believe being baptized in the Spirit can help the believer to better "walk in love" because of the perceived association between love and glossolalia (praying in the Spirit) in Jude.


                My experience is that most Pentecostals are more patient and generally "nicer" than I am. I don't know whether they practice glossolalia more or less than I do, so I can't explain it on that basis.


                I differ from Pentecostals on the meaning of "baptize in the Spirit," and on the issue of "separate and subsequent" (with the caveat that I don't find Scripture to be consistent on the matter in any "systematic" way). I'll explain if you wish.
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Let's go, Brandon

                Comment


                • #83
                  That source is hard to take serious given the first sentence reads:

                  The history of Pentecostalism starts in Africa, home of Voodoo (vodou), the traditional religion of the motherland and the traditional religion of the diaspora.


                  I guess the author never heard of Charles Fox Parham and Bethel Bible College.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                    I differ from Pentecostals on the meaning of "baptize in the Spirit," and on the issue of "separate and subsequent" (with the caveat that I don't find Scripture to be consistent on the matter in any "systematic" way). I'll explain if you wish.
                    Are you saying that Baptism in the Spirit and Baptism into Christ have a flexible sequence?
                    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Are you saying that Baptism in the Spirit and Baptism into Christ have a flexible sequence?
                      Yes in light of the Cornelius accounts in Acts 10-11, if nothing else. But I'm also saying that the expression "baptize in the Spirit" is used somewhat flexibly.

                      In the Gospels and in 1 Cor. 12:13, I believe it is reasonably clear that it refers to rebirth, but even in those cases it is notably proximate to accounts of, or teachings about, overt supernatural activity.

                      In Acts 1, "baptize in the Spirit" seems to be directly referring to the "empowering" action of the Spirit, with no obvious salvific or regenerative aspect, in some contrast to Luke's prior use of the expression.

                      In Acts 11 describing Acts 10 and referring back to Acts 1 and 2, both aspects seem to be equally present and intermingled.
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Let's go, Brandon

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        That source is hard to take serious given the first sentence reads:

                        The history of Pentecostalism starts in Africa, home of Voodoo (vodou), the traditional religion of the motherland and the traditional religion of the diaspora.


                        I guess the author never heard of Charles Fox Parham and Bethel Bible College.
                        That's very similar to the arguments that rock music is based upon voodoo rituals or African folk religion, arguments which come across as thinly based racism (as the genre was called "jungle music" in the 50s/60s as a slur).
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                          Yes in light of the Cornelius accounts in Acts 10-11, if nothing else. But I'm also saying that the expression "baptize in the Spirit" is used somewhat flexibly.

                          In the Gospels and in 1 Cor. 12:13, I believe it is reasonably clear that it refers to rebirth, but even in those cases it is notably proximate to accounts of, or teachings about, overt supernatural activity.
                          1 Cor 12:4-6 seems to me to be of particular significance.

                          In Acts 1, "baptize in the Spirit" seems to be directly referring to the "empowering" action of the Spirit, with no obvious salvific or regenerative aspect, in some contrast to Luke's prior use of the expression.
                          Verse 8 states that the apostles were to be baptised into the Spirit and that they would receive power at that time. As a stand alone statement, it doesn't establish a direct connection between baptism into the Spirit and empowerment. Empowerment (with or for what) is not defined, but can reasonably be interpreted to encompass any type of God given spiritual empowerment or authority spoken of elsewhere in scripture. Distinguishing between gifts and effects (1 Cor 12:4,6) might go some way to resolving some of the issues.

                          In Acts 11 describing Acts 10 and referring back to Acts 1 and 2, both aspects seem to be equally present and intermingled.
                          An interesting account -
                          (v14) particular words, spoken, are instrumental in salvation
                          (v17) the gift of the Holy Spirit was provided AFTER they believed.
                          (v18) God grants repentance

                          Of course, it is necessary to examine other passages of scripture to determine precisely what is intended by the extremely brief, highly abbreviated overview provided, particularly with regard to "give repentance," which, if a person was eager to lean on his own understanding rather than searching for the scriptures for the understanding that they provide, might be considered to indicate that God gives repentance directly.
                          1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                            That's very similar to the arguments that rock music is based upon voodoo rituals or African folk religion, arguments which come across as thinly based racism (as the genre was called "jungle music" in the 50s/60s as a slur).
                            I think similar things were said about jazz in the 20s

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              I think similar things were said about jazz in the 20s
                              And maybe even about the waltz
                              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                And maybe even about the waltz
                                That was consider scandalous when it was introduced but not based upon voodoo rituals or African folk religion

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Dave L, 01-09-2022, 12:07 PM
                                108 responses
                                533 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by Dave L, 01-09-2022, 07:14 AM
                                88 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by mossrose, 11-07-2021, 09:28 PM
                                149 responses
                                1,068 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Working...
                                X