I am interested in anyone's view of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" as referenced in the book of Acts as well as the current "Pentecostal" Theology on the subject. Mahalo!

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Answers

Boy is this a can of worm. From past dialog, I realize that most on this message board do not believe in the Gifts of the Spirit or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of Tongues. However, being Pentecostal, I would like to answer the question and allow you all to "pick me apart" :o)

Acts 2, 10, & 19 all talk about the Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit and in each instance they spoke in Tongues as evidence to this baptism. Two other instances Acts 8 and 9 only infer that they were Baptized with the evidence of Tongues, but when seen in light of the context of the entire book of Acts an honest evaluation would lend itself to admitting they did speak in Tongues.

The premise is simple. Jesus Baptized born again believers in the New Testament, I want to present the same Gospel, it has not changed. Apart from the obvious Scriptures Mark 16:17, Acts 2:39, Rom.11:29 and 1 Cor.13:8-10, I have experienced the evidence of this Promise for myself and am witness to this precious baptism.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

It appears there is the Good News of "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Which Jesus instructed the disciples to preach to "the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel."

(Mat 10:6 KJV) "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

(Mat 10:7 KJV) "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

And the Good News of Salvation which is to go to the Gentiles.

(Rom 11:11 KJV) "I say then, Have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy."

Just wondering which you preach? Or do you preach both?

Regards.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Who was baptized with the Holy spirit? Who manifested those miraculous gifts? acts chapter 2 says it was 12 men. without the laying on of hands of these men these gifts were not present. By the way "tongues means languages". intelligible speech.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Bob,

Apparently, I read Acts 2 differently than some. It tells me 120 people were Baptized in the Holy Ghost and spake with Tongues. Acts 10 tells me the listeners in Cornelius's house spoke in Tongues (un-numbered) and then there were about 12 men in Ephesus that spoke with Tongues after being Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8, I believe the Samaritians spoke with Tongues (hence Simon's desire to purchase the power of laying on of hands) and Acts 10 when Paul was born again, I believe this was the point in time when he received the Promise of the Baptism and spoke in Tongues.

I do understand where someone would think that the Holy Spirit baptism was only passed along by the laying on of hands, but you specifically number this among the 12 at Pentecost, what about Paul in Acts 19? Or Annias in Acts 9?

I am not sure if this conversation is worth getting into. I believe in this precious baptism and I have been in so many discussions where insincere people could only make silly and sarcastic remarks. I am not saying that anyone here has done so, only that I have been in so many of these conversations it is not worth my time if people are not sincere.

Tongues are intelligible speech, a language spoken by someone somewhere in the world, I couldn't agree more. I also believe that the Holy Spirit can give us Tongues of Angels, 1 Cor. 13:1.

Rich,

Honestly, I didn't realize the Gospel of Jesus Christ was only for Gentiles. Perhaps you could explain this to me further. Responding to your question without studying those verses you quoted I would have thought that the message Jesus gave to the disciples (in Matt.) was a pre-resurrection message (specifically for the Jews), and the message after the resurrection was for all people Jew and Gentile alike. I don't know that Rom.11:11 is telling me that the Gospel is not for the Jews, again I did not study out this verse.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Excuse me Paul was born again in Acts 9 not 10, should have reread my message more carefully before posting, sorry.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Barry, The disciples of John in Acts 19, where baptized in the Holy Spirit after water immersion. The reality is that there were disciples (un-numbered) of John the Baptist. They only knew of the baptism (water) that John gave for repentance FOR the coming of the Christ. Thus, those disciples did not receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit- since it is in the water immersion or baptism of Jesus that we gain the forgiveness of sins and that we receive the Holy Spirit. The discples of John are presumed not to be saved at this point. When Paul understood their position, he told them of Christ and His baptism to recieve the Holy Spirit. In the proper context of the passage, they then were immersed (water) into the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this passage it is only after Paul laid his hands on them they received the anointing and the empowerment to speak in tongues (glossia or other languages). Now I do not agree with some in this board who will say that the gifts (i.e tongues) were given stickly only after the laying of hands of the Apostles, but in this case they did- and if we say other wise then we are guilty of using scripture to feed our bias. But, please do not make the repeated mistake of riping apart the fact that these disciple were water baptized- and I know you will disagree.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Barry,

I asked the question re: Kingdom Message, which was to go Israel...(Mat 10:5 KJV) "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:"

(Mat 10:6 KJV) "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

(Mat 10:7 KJV) "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

After the resurrection Jesus instructed...(Mark 16:14 KJV) "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

(Mark 16:15 KJV) "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

(Acts 11:18 KJV) "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

(Acts 28:28 KJV) "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."

I don't mean to imply that the Salvation message and the Kingdom Message are totally seperate. However, some have said to me. "I'm saved and that's all I care about. This Kingdom thing you are talking about doesn't mean anything to me."

In other words I believe a person can come to Jesus and receive Salvation and never understand the Kingdom Message, or Good News about the Kingdom of God which was set up at Sinai when God gave the Kingdom Laws to Moses and all Israel said...(Exo 19:8 KJV) "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD."

(Deu 14:2 KJV) "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."

(1 Pet 2:9 KJV) "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

(1 Pet 2:10 KJV) "Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

Take care!

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

Anthony, If you are referring to verse 5 meaning water baptism, I don't disagree with you. I believe verse 5 is water baptism and verse 6 is Holy Spirit baptism. I probably should not assume you will disagree with me (as you did with me) but I do think it quite unlikely that you would see verse 6 as referring to the Baptism in/with the Holy, even though they did speak with Tongues.

I was going to cut and paste from another conversation I am in but decided to hold off for now until further clarification. You believe that the Holy Spirit indwells the life of a believer at salvation, correct? I believe you would say yes. The differences come in, as to when we believe salvation occurs. (We can let that sleeping dog lie for now). But I think we would be on the same page that here in Acts 19:5 the Ephesians have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. You believe that happens at water baptism, so then in verse 5 these believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

After salvation in verse 6 Paul then lays his hands on these Spirit indwelled believers and the Holy Spirit then immerses them, (the Promise of the Father which is available to all born again believers). And we know this is the Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit and not simply salvation for a number of reasons,

1) No where does Scripture instruct us to lay hands on anyone for salvation 2) The Scripture specifically says the Spirit "came on them" which is definitively different than indwelling them 3) After laying hands on them they spoke in Tongues, this is a sign of Baptism not salvation 4) Scripture does tell us that gifts are given by the laying on of hands

Let us see where we go from here.

Mark, this is a little different than I would have categorized the Gospel message, in any case I like the way you point out each reference to support your position. I never separated the kingdom message from the Gospel message, to me once I was born again I believed the benefits of the Kingdom were mine and have appropriated those benefits and promises in my own life. Without a doubt I have seen individuals who were content to have believed the Gospel but had not applied themselves to receiving all that Jesus has for them, IMHO, I would have great concern even for their salvation. Only Jesus knows the heart.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

I personally believe that the gifts of miraculous tongues and healing may in fact be in existence today. I have heard too many credible accounts from people in the missionary field to believe otherwise. However, I believe that the gift of tongues is quite a bit less common than charismatics today believe; a very rare gift indeed, relegated to distant areas of the world where the scriptures have yet to be introduced.

As I read the scriptures, I note the following:

1) Paul is emphatic in his statements that, contrary to the charismatic teaching that all Christians should speak in tongues as evidence they are saved and have the Holy Spirit Baptism, not all speak in tongues. Paul says that to some, not all, is this gift given 1 Corinthians 12:10). He also says it in the opposite manner so the point is doubly made: "Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Corinthians 12:30). The Greek construction of this question implies a negative answer.

2) Paul says that there is ONE Baptism. He also says that "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), not some. I see no distinction in holy writ between baptism by the Spirit and baptism of the Spirit. It is the same concept, there is one baptism. We are baptized by/in the Spirit at our conversion, it is not a separate second baptism we are to seek after.

3) While it is true that several people spoke in tongues in scripture, they did so at their conversion, not at some later time after praying for it. And there are just as many instances of people being converted who never seem to have spoken in tongues at all. It does not seem to have been the normative experience, rather, it seems to have been a rare, miraculous event which showed unbelievers the power of the Spirit.

Well, thats my two cents worth, anyway. For what its worth.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

John, I appreciate your two cents worth, what you have shared is an understanding by a couple of people I have met over the years. The one admonition by Paul in Corinthians for the brethren not to be ignorant of Spiritual gifts is one of the most ignored I have found in Christiandom. The Gifts of the Spirit in Corinthians is diverse from the Tongues received at the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Therefor, the question by Paul in Corinthians pertains to the Gift of Tongues not the Tongues given at the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, not all believers are used in the Gift of Tongues. For instance even though I speak in Tongues God has never used me in the Gift of Tongues.

Second, Eph. 4:5 is talking about the one baptism that saves. It is not telling us that only one baptism exists. I have seen this common misinterpretation before, but the one baptism that saves is our baptism into Christ, Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5, Col.2:10-13. The book of Hebrews, clearly written well after Ephesians, specifically mentions the fundamental doctrine of Baptisms (plural). The Scriptures indicate, in my opinion, 4 baptisms that pertain to us today, only one of them saves, as indicated in Eph.

Finally, Acts 2 is a great account of 120 born again believers being baptized in/with the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure how or why you say people are baptized in the Holy Spirit at salvation when tongues is not an evidence of salvation but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe this is one of the results of believing that there is only baptism relevant for today.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

John, I re-post to comment:

2) Paul says that there is ONE Baptism. He also says that "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), not some. I see no distinction in holy writ between baptism by the Spirit and baptism of the Spirit.

****It is the same concept, there is one baptism. We are baptized by/in the Spirit at our conversion,**** it is not a separate second baptism we are to seek after.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have you changed your position in the last year and a half?

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Before considering the issue of baptism with the Holy Ghost, we need to consider the OT. The OT doesn't talk about people being _baptized_ with the Holy Ghost but it does talk about the Spirit of the Lord coming upon people like Jepthah or Samson.

In Luke, we also see that Zecharias was filled with the Holy Ghost when he regained the ability to speak, and prophesied about his son John.

John the Baptist prophesied that one would come after him who would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Later, the disciples were sent to Jerusalem to await being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Later, Peter refers to John's prophesy in relation to Cornelius' household.

The Acts 2 experience is called 'filled with the Holy Ghost' and baptized with the Holy Ghost, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter makes a promise of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost to his listeners, their children, and as many as are afar off. Acts 8 mentions the Holy Ghost uses terms like the Holy Ghost having not yet fallen upon the Samaritans, and also speaks of them receiving the Holy Ghost. Acts 19 mentions the Holy Ghost coming upon_ about 12 men.

'Baptized' with the Holy Ghost seems to be somewhat special terminology. The apostles had done miracles. The Lord had breathed on them and told them 'receive ye the Holy Ghost,' but they were baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2.

It's interesting to not the different terminology that Luke uses to refer to the Holy Ghost empowering people. I can't extract some kind of neat difference of the meanings of the different phrases Luke uses, baptized, came upon, fell upon, filled, full of.

What I do see is that the Holy Spirit did empower people in the OT, and I recall the words of Christ to the apostles in John 14 or 15 that the Holy Ghost was with them, but would be with them. On the other hand, Luke says that Zecharias was _filled with the Holy ghost, terminology which sounds like the Spirit was _in _ him, and which Luke also uses in a case of people being baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Those who say that saints can no longer do miracles or exercise any of the 'supernatural gifts' because there are no apostles left to lay hands on them don't have any real scriptural case for this idea. Why not? Elisha did miracles before the apostles were born. He was empowered by the Spirit to do miracles before Acts 2 even occurred. Whether or not Elisha was 'baptized' with the Holy Spirit or not, he still did miracles.

There is no scripture to suggest that after Christ came, God limited the use of miracles, etc. to only those the apostles laid hands on. In fact, we see in Mark that the apostles had rebuked some people for casting out miracles in Jesus name. Jesus corrected them for this, telling them that no man could do a MIRACLE in his name and then easily (or quickly, or something along those lines, memory fails me) speak a word against Him. Christ implies that casting out demons is a type of miracle.

In Acts, we see that there were some who did miracles or receive the Holy Ghost aside from the laying on of the apostle's hands. One of the reasons that the disciple (notice the word disciple and not apostle) came to Paul was that he might receive the Holy Ghost.

Some years later, after Paul was _sent out _ Luke starts to call him an apostle (sent one.) He then starts doing miracles. Not only that, but he is also able to impart spiritual gifts. So, not only is God able to do miracles apart from the 12 apostles, but He is also able to RAISE UP A NEW APOSTLE without the previous apostles setting him apart for ministry.

In Acts 10, some Gentiles received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues while Peter was just talking to them. There is no mention of Peter laying hands on them. He was just talking. He hadn't even baptized them yet. But they started speaking in tongues.

We do see in scripture that one way God imparts spiritual gifts is through apostles. Paul wanted to see the Romans that he might impart to them some spiritual gift. But these same Romans already had the gift of prophecy at work among them. In I Corinthians 14:13, we see that Paul instructed the one who spoke in tongues to pray that he may interpret. Chapter 12 identifies tongues as a gift of the Spirit. The implication is that one can receive interpretation through prayer, and that one doesn't need an apostle to be there.

God certain can empower saints through apostles, but He is not bound to that method, and there are examples in scripture of God filling saints with the Spirit and allowing them to use gifts apart from the laying on of the apostles hands.

In Acts 2, 'they all spake with tongues.' The most natural interpretation to me seems to be that all 120 were filled with the spoke in tongues. Why would Peter offer the gift to 3000 if all the 120 hadn't even received it yet? Would 12 men talking in foreign languages draw a crowd? It's not THAT loud. 120 people speaking in foreign languages can be quite loud.

Of course, the gift Peter spoke of in Acts 2 was not tongues, but rather the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible doesn't say that all will speak in tongues. We see 3 occasions of people being filled or baptized with the Spirit or the Spirit coming on them and them speaking in tongues in Acts. But the Bible doesn't teach that all who have the Spirit will speak in tongues. Paul asks in I Cor. 12, "DO all speak in tongues?"

Take a careful look at Acts 10. They spoke in tongues and magnified God. I'm not Greek expert, but it sure seems to me that if half of them magnified God in Greek and the other half spoke in tongues, the verse would be just as true as if all Gentiles present did both.

Take a look at Acts 19: They spoke in tongues and prophesied. If half spoke in tongues, and half prophesied, wouldn't the verse be 100% true?

As far as I can see, these verses aren't even conclusive that all that the Spirit fell on those occasions spoke with tongues. The 'initial evidence' doctrine doesn't have very strong scriptural support, imo.

A previous poster wrote, >>2) Paul says that there is ONE Baptism. He also says that "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), not some. I see no distinction in holy writ between baptism by the Spirit and baptism of the Spirit. It is the same concept, there is one baptism. We are baptized by/in the Spirit at our conversion, it is not a separate second baptism we are to seek after.<<

Hebrews 6 mentions 'baptisms' plural. The thing we need to keep in mind about 'one baptism' is context. The passage says that there is 'one faith' and one baptism. There is one baptism in the sense that there is one faith. The faith of one saint is the same as the faith of another. There is unity. The baptism of one saint is the same baptism that another saint undergoes.

On the other hand, 'baptism' can also be used metaphorically. Jesus told John and James that they would drink the cup that he drank of and be baptized with the baptism that He would be baptized with. Think about this saying. Was Jesus baptized with water or with the Holy Ghost, or baptized into Himself after making this statement? What he did experience was suffering. Later, we read that Jesus prayed that if it be possible, that the cup pass from Him.

Wasn't the 'baptism' that Jesus was to be baptized with something different from water baptism? Of course. He had already been baptized with water.

'Baptism' is used metaphorically to refer to a type of immersion. Both James and John experienced suffering later in their lives, and shared in the afflictions of the cross.

So 'baptism' can be used to refer to different things if it is used in a different sense. To be 'baptized' with the Spirit is to be thoroughly immerged, or thoroughly 'made wet' with the Spirit. This is a metaphor. Imagine someone going down into the water and getting completely wet at John's baptism. Get that mental picture- soaked, water dripping, hair wet, clothes soacked. now, imagine someone completely soaked with the Holy Ghost.

What does it mean to be baptized by the Spirit into one body? To be immersed into the body.

When Paul wrote of one baptism, I don't believe He was saying that the baptism that Christ was baptized with is the same thing as water baptism. That doesn't make sense. He wrote of us having one faith and one baptism. That means one saints faith is the same as the other. One baptism tells us we have one baptism in common. It doesn't mean that 'baptism' in the Bible can't be used in different senses.

A previous poster wrote, 2) Paul says that there is ONE Baptism. He also says that "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), not some. I see no distinction in holy writ between baptism by the Spirit and baptism of the Spirit. It is the same concept, there is one baptism. We are baptized by/in the Spirit at our conversion, it is not a separate second baptism we are to seek after.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Thanks, Link.

I always appreciate your thorough and well-thought-out postings.

I imagine you are still thankful for all of that Bible memory work you did as a teenager.

May God Bless you richly,

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

John Wilson,

From reading Paul, I don't get the idea that the manifestation of tongues he wrote about was being used to preach the gospel to people who hadn't heard the good news. Even in Acts 2, those who spoke in tongues spoke of the wonderful works of God. It doesn't say that the Gospel was explained in tongues. After that, Peter spoke up and preached, presumably in Greek or some other common tongue they all had.

In I Corinthians 14, the resultof speaking in tongues without interpretation in meetings would be that unbelievers who happened to be present would think that everyone was crazy. Tongues served as a sign to unbelievers. But what was the sign? What does the verse Paul quotes say. '...with men of other tongues...will I speak unto this people and yet for all that they will not hear me.' A sign can be a fulfilled prophecy.

From I Cor. 14 we see that tongues edifies the one who uses the gift and can edify the congregation if accompanied by interpretation.

Why would tongues only show up where the scriptures have yet to be translated? Even the Acts 2 crowd, if they could understand Peter's preaching in a common language, probably had access to a translation of scripture that they coudl read. Greek was a common language. They could ahve used the Septuigint. If they knew Hebrew they could read the Hebrew scriptures if they had the money to buy a copy. (Hebrew scriptures were probably more expensive due to the stringent requirements for copying them. The Septuigint could be copied much more easily.)

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001