Regarding Holy Spirit baptism, I am anxious to hear your viewpoints, and I believe that it would make an excellent thread for discussion on the Christian Church Forum.

My position could be summarized in the following points.

1. The preaching of John the Baptizer regarding the promised baptism in the Spirit leaves little room for doubt. This baptism is obviously intended to be universal in scope. That he speaks of two groups of people - those who would be baptized in the HS vs. those who would be baptized in "fire" - is quite clear in the context of all four gospels. One is just as universal as the other. 2. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not the distinguishing mark of an apostle. The calling and the signs of an apostle certainly are. 3. All who were present on the Day of Pentecost (120 in total) were baptized in the Spirit, although not all were apostles. 4. That not all Spirit-baptized believers spoke in other tongues or manifested supernatural gifts is quite clear from the book of Acts. When Peter acknowledged that the household of Cornelius had received this gift in a similar way that the apostles had received it, he had to reach back into the early archives of Church history to find a similar case - the experience of Pentecost. Meanwhile, thousands of believers had received this universal promise without any particular signs following. 5. That all believers are baptized in the same Spirit is a given, according to Paul's letter to the Corinthians.What many in our brotherhood are calling the "indwelling gift of the Spirit" is exactly what is meant in the NT when it refers to the baptism in the HS. 6. That the "putting on Christ" in the letter to the Galatians is synonymous with the Baptism in the Spirit. Thus, we are "born of water and the Spirit" in believer's immersion. 7. This was the position held by the majority of the early leaders of the Restoration Movement, including such men as Lamar, Lard, Milligan, et al. Why did McGarvy's view win the day? That is a question that historians have not answered to our satisfaction as yet.

Yours in Christ, PW

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Answers

Philip,

I agree with you. Spirit baptism and the Gift of the Spirit are synonymous terms. As I'm sure you're aware, the biggest disagreement with this in the RM is not exegetical, but a fear to use the language the Bible uses because they believe that "Spirit baptism" always includes speaking in tongues as the old line Pentecostals believe.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of fire are one an the same with the physical evidence of speaking in tongues according to the Acts account. Traditionally the RM rejects the idea based on two key arguments... 1) the gifts could only be given through the apostolic laying on of hands and 2) it ceased because the perfect has come. If you look at the traditional argument- it has serious flaws.

Paul says at salvation we are given a deposit of the Holy Spirit- not the fullness II Cor 1:22, Eph. 1:13-14, II Tim. 1:14. But we are to ask and desire that fullness II TIm 1:7, Eph 3:16, I Tim 4:14, Eph 3:19, 5:18, 6:18, I Cor 14:12, 39. I personally believe that fullness comes when we receive the Baptism of the HS- as seen in Acts 2:4, 2:18, 2:28, 4:31, 4:33, 6:8, 7:55, 10:44-48, 11:15, 19:6.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Barry,

I am so delighted to find that we finally agree on something. Since this subject is of such a great consequence to our faith as believers, I am grateful that we can see eye to eye on this matter. Roses to you!

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Philip,

I believe your way off base here. Point for point:

1. The grammar of Mt 3 makes it clear that the BHS and the Baptism with fire (BF) are connected. It is not bhs vs. bf. They go hand in hand.

2. I agree. The Apostolate was estanlished in Jn 20.

3.It is a stretch to try and incorporate the 120 as having received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (BHS). If you follow the pronouns of Acts 1 & 2, it is not the 120, but only the 12. Let’s take a look at pronouns.

Acts 1:1 The first account I (Luke) composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He (Jesus) was taken up to heaven, after He (Jesus) had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles (the 11) whom He (Jesus) had chosen. 3 To these (the 11) He (Jesus) also presented Himself (Jesus) alive after His (Jesus) suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them (the 11) over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 Gathering them (the 11) together, He (Jesus) commanded them (the 11) not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said," you (the 11) heard of from Me (Jesus); 5 for John baptized with water, but you (the 11) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." 6 So when they (the 11) had come together, they (the 11) were asking Him (Jesus), saying, "Lord (Jesus), is it at this time You (Jesus) are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He (Jesus) said to them (the 11), "It is not for you (the 11) to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His (the Father) own authority; 8 but you (the 11) will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you (the 11); and you (the 11) shall be My (Jesus) witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." 9 And after He (Jesus) had said these things, He (Jesus) was lifted up while they (the 11) were looking on, and a cloud received Him (Jesus) out of their sight. 10 And as they (the 11) were gazing intently into the sky while He (Jesus) was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them (the 11). 11 They (the 2 in white clothing) also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you (the 11) stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who (Jesus) has been taken up from you (the 11) into heaven, will come in just the same way as you (the 11) have watched Him (Jesus) go into heaven." 12 Then they (the 11) returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 When they (the 11) had entered the city, they (the 11) went up to the upper room where they (the 11) were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James (aka the 11). 14 These (the 11) all with one mind were continually devoting themselves (the 11) to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 "Brethren (the 120), the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those (Jewish leaders) who arrested Jesus. 17 "For he (Judas) was counted among us (the 11) and received his (Judas) share in this ministry." 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.' 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us (the 11) all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us (the 11)-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John (the immerser) until the day that He (Jesus) was taken up from us (the 11)--one of these (the 120) must become a witness with us (the 11) of His resurrection." 23 So they (the 120) put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they (all?) prayed and said, "You (Jesus), Lord (Jesus), who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You (Jesus) have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they (the 11) drew lots for them (Joseph & Matthias), and the lot fell to Matthias; and he (Matthias) was added to the eleven apostles (the 11).

2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they (the 11+Matthias) were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it (the sound) filled the whole house where they (the 11+Matthias) were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them (the 11 + Matthias) tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested (Lit. “it sat”) on each one of them. 4 And they (the 11 + Matthias) were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them (the 11 + Matthias) utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them (the crowd) was hearing them (the 11 + Matthias) speak in his own language. 7 They (the crowd) were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these (the 11 + Matthias) who are speaking Galileans?

First, notice the apparent time between 1:26 and 2:1, i.e., “WHEN the Day of Pentecost had come…” There is no reason to believe the 120 were all hanging around the house for several days. Second, the antecedent to “they” in 2:1 is Matthias and the 11 in 1:26. Third, are you trying to say that all 120 were Galileans (2:7)? I suppose it’s possible, but highly unlikely. Fourth, it was the apostles who were told by Jesus would be baptized by the Holy Spirit (1:5), 1:2 tells us who Jesus was talking to. Jesus does not indicate anyone else would be, and neither do the pronouns of chaps 1 & 2.

4. I believe you do Peter and the other apostles an injustice. Peter dd not have to "reach back into the archives". The BHS was a sign of judgment and when he saw it occur to the household of Cornelius he reported back to the Church at Jerusalem with his tail between his legs. The fact that 11:15 is worded the way it is indicates this was not for every believer.

5. I think you're simply wrong on this point.

6. Same with this point. Just wrong.

7. They're entitled to their views. I don't have enough info about them to answer. I hold my own views.

Please read my article at: www.cccflorida.org/BHS.htm

Barry, Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your positions do so out of fear? I disagree with about everything Philip has said on this post, yet I do not feel he holds them because he's afraid of what he might become. Why can't we who disagree do so because we honestly do/can not accept your arguments?

Philip, It should unnerve you more than a bit to have Barry agree with you on a theological matter.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Dear "pastor", whoever you are,

Why can't you pin a name to your post? Are you afraid of being identified with your position? I am so tired of people joining a thread without identifying themselves. It speaks volumes of where they are spiritually.

Having said that, I proceed to respond.

That the baptism in the Spirit and the baptism in fire (not "of fire" as most classic Pentecostals claim) are two separate items is most evident in the immediate context of all three Gospels. The only fire that John speaks about is the fire of judgment of the wicked, not a fiery baptism (whatever that means) if the faithful. The reason John speaks in inclusive terms by the use of the word "and", is because he is addressing both groups in the same crowd. For example, in Matthew 3:7 he speaks to the "brood of vipers" and he says that His (Jesus') winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor, gathering His wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.(v. 12) Now, beloved, that is a fiery baptism that I do not care to receive, do you?

Some claim that the "tongues of fire" that appeared on each of the 120 gathered on the Day of Pentecost, is the fiery baptism to which John was referring to. First of all, that these tongues of fire are not real fire is stated thus in the text. Secondly, this manifestation was never repeated again in the entire history of the Church, including in the case of the apostle Paul. Third, these tongues of fire were not universal.

You say,

"Paul says at salvation we are given a deposit of the Holy Spirit- not the fullness II Cor 1:22, Eph. 1:13-14, II Tim. 1:14. But we are to ask and desire that fullness II TIm 1:7, Eph 3:16, I Tim 4:14, Eph 3:19, 5:18, 6:18, I Cor 14:12, 39. I personally believe that fullness comes when we receive the Baptism of the HS- as seen in Acts 2:4, 2:18, 2:28, 4:31, 4:33, 6:8, 7:55, 10:44-48, 11:15, 19:6."

That we are to desire the fullness of the Spirit is a given. No argument there. Nevertheless, you confuse the "baptism in the Spirit" with the "fullness of the Spirit" that is to be desired by all Spirit- baptized believers (1Corinthians 12:13). Well it is true that the baptism in the Spirit is sometimes referred as a "fullness of the Spirit" or a "descending upon" in the book of Acts, that doesn't mean that the fullness of Ephesians 5:18 is the "baptism in the Spirit". The context is the all-important element to distinguish between both.

Please, give your name in following posts!

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Great Scott, With all do respect (and I do respect you sincerely), I beg to honestly disagree with your assessment of the position that I have stated. It is your McGarvian bias that causes you to read into Scripture what is non-existent. Evidence of such a bias is present in the following remarks: You say, “Philip, I believe your way off base here. Point for point” Scott, if I am off base so were Robert Milligan, Robert Richardson, Leslie G. Thomas, Moses Lard, J. S. Lamar, J. H. Garrison, and Russell Boatmen (among many others). It was McGarvey that held the dissenting view, the view you espouse today. At least I am consistent with historical majority view of the fathers of the Restoration Movement. So, please do not paint me into a theological corner on this issue. You say, “They're entitled to their views. I don't have enough info about them to answer. I hold my own views” Well, Scott, I do have direct quotes by these men if you are interested. To hold personal views on something is commendable, but at least give the other historical view the benefit of a fair hearing. I seriously question that you have even bothered to read some of their writings on this matter. Let me state my purpose up front. I believe that it is high time we hold a national discussion on this issue. A symposium had been scheduled by the CRA on the subject of the Charismatic Movement, but was canceled in favor of the “That We May See Jesus” theme. Why? That is a question that many of us, including Thomas Tybeck would like to see answered. Therefore, I intend to force an open discussion on this subject. The “pronoun” argument that you propose is a bogus one. It is virtually unknown by most serious scholars outside of our RM. Many among our own scholars, such as Russell Boatman, also deny it. Since they have adequately debated this aspect, I will not take up time to re-instate it here. You say, “Philip, It should unnerve you more than a bit to have Barry agree with you on a theological matter.” Not really, Scott. That I agree with one point doesn’t even come close to suggesting that I agree with all the rest. I’m sure that you would agree!

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Philp,

My overall sentiment is this: I don't care what _______ felt about it. What do the Scriptures say. I believe the pronoun argument is valid. In the words of Rush, "Words mean things." So do pronouns.

You are correct concerning that I have not researched out what the different RM fathers believed on the issue. I doubt I ever will. I do not approach things that way. Anyway, answer the email I sent you. I need an answer asap.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Philip, you say "these manifestations were never repeated again" that is not a true statement. Tongues is for the church today- it has never ceased. In Acts 10 Peter declared that the people in the household of Cornelius received the Spirit "just as we have" (vs 47). The baptism of fire was seen in Acts 2 (cf. Luke 12:49) is the same Jesus would bring. Fire not only means judgement but God's presence. God the Father manifest himself in fire- "It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame" (Song Of Sol. 8:6).

The fire of the Holy Spirit that was seen in Acts 2 is the same that can come onto believers today when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit comes.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Here we go.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

If it is true that one of the rules of the forum is that none can post anonymously...why aren't these posts being deleted? Of Course, maybe those with the powers of the forum have not had time to see these posts yet.

In any case, let's hope it is done soon.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

Scott,

You wrote: Barry, Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your positions do so out of fear? I disagree with about everything Philip has said on this post, yet I do not feel he holds them because he's afraid of what he might become. Why can't we who disagree do so because we honestly do/can not accept your arguments?

I don't think that everyone that disagrees with me is afraid. I do believe that the RM as a whole is so paranoid about the charismatic movement (somewhat justifiably) that anything that hints of such becomes untouchable. But I agree that we can disagree on many issues without fear being a factor. Many times it is simply an honest disagreement.

Scott said: Philip, It should unnerve you more than a bit to have Barry agree with you on a theological matter.

Any why is that? Which of the following theological matters do you disagree with me on?

1. That Jesus is God in the flesh.

2. That God is a Trinity.

3. That Jesus was crucified in our place.

4. That Jesus rose from the dead bodily.

5. That Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we accept Him as Savior and Lord.

6. That the Bible is the Word of God.

I could go on and on. According to your thinking, anyone reading this that agrees with me on the above six points should be unnerved "more than a bit" and should rethink their positions on these matters.

Scott, as far as I now there has been one issue we have disagreed on up until now -- and that is whether a person has to know everything about baptism for their baptism to be effective. If you allow that to cause division between us I feel sorry for you.

-- Anonymous, December 21, 2001

Brother Scott:

I do not have much time but wanted to write a brief note to say AMEN AMD AMEN to your arguments concerning the correct understanding of the use of the pronouns in Acts 1&2 as well as the often overlooked time difference between Acts 1:26 & 2:1. As well as the fact that the Holy Spirit was promised in Acts 1:5-8 to the apostles and that they (the apostles) were told to wait in Jerusalem for the Promise of the father which they (the apostles) had heard from Christ. All of this shows, as you have done quite well, that it was the 11 + Mathias that received the beginning of the out pouring of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28. And thus far I have not seen anyone give any decent, reasoned reply to your argument from the pronouns of these two chapters. In fact, the only feeble swipe at what you have said was nothing more than to complain that your argument is "Mcgarvian". I do not know where this habit of labeling arguments that are similar to those made by brothers sensible enough to "speak the same thing" that the word of God teaches originated. Nor do I know the source of this nonsense of so designating a similar argument of Christians that are of “one heart and soul” and of the same mind. It is as if we are expected to believe that an argument is wrong solely because it sounds similar to that which another faithful Christian, long sense deceased, has actually said the same thing you have said. It appears to come from those who do not have much respect for Brother J. W. Mcgarvey, who was in his time and possibly ours as well, one of the greatest scholars among us. But these men who so much detest him cannot hold a candle to his genuine scholarship.

And I wonder just why this nonsense of labeling arguments by creating a name for it taken from one who is considered its most prominent proponent has not been given some comparable designation. Perhaps we should call it “uselessian” taken from the character of the behavior instead of the name of the most prominent person guilty of such nonsense to emphasize the fact that this behavior is a pathetically useless habit.

Nor do I understand why these same people have not devised a label ending with the letters "ian" for arguments sounding similar to those made by Christ through the Holy Spirit speaking in the inspired writers of the New Testament. The closest thing that I can find in the scriptures that fits arguments originating from Christ and is the same as the doctrine of Christ is the word Christ with an “ian” attached forming the word “CHRISTIAN”!

Your argument, inasmuch as it harmonizes with the teaching of Christ through the inspired Luke, was not “Mcgarvian” but rather it was “Christian” and the false assertion that it was “Mcgarvian” was designed for no greater purpose than to hide the fact that it was from Christ. It was from Christ when Brother J. W. Mcgarvey preached it and it is still from Christ as Brother Scott Sheridan preaches it. And if you do not mind I will add the name of E. Lee Saffold to this illustrious list of those faithful men who preach these sound words. And the designating of this statement of the truth by you as “Mcgarvian” was done by deliberately ignoring the fact that it was a just as Christian when Brother Mcgarvey pointed it out as it was when you very correctly and accurately did the same thing in this forum. I did not hear you give Brother Mcgarvey as the authority. Rather I see that you quoted what Christ through the inspired writer Luke in the book of Acts actually said. And that is the way Christians should assert and prove that what they are teaching came from Christ our Lord and not any other source. I thank you for it and thank God for you because of it.

And it does not matter in the least bit what any MAN has to say about these matters whether he was in or out of the "restoration Movement". What matters is what does God have to say in HIS inspired word. And there is no question, as you have so accurately shown, that the “cloven tongues likes as of fire” sat upon the heads of the twelve apostles of Christ made up of “the eleven +Mathias”. And I thank you for “rightly dividing the word of God” and giving the doctrine of Christ prominence in your response.

But, if anyone wants to know why "McGarvy's view"won the day let him consider that the reason my be that it was not "Mcgarvey's view" but instead it was in fact the teaching of Christ through the inspired writer Luke and brother Mcgarvey, like our BRother Scott Sheridian, was a faithful teacher and advocate of the doctrine of Christ. That is always a "winning" combination, isn't it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 21, 2001

Barry,

We have also disagreed on how you would try and disect the Gospel to only include the death, burial & resurrection. Now, with that said, what I meant with the above comment was tongue in cheek. A friendly jab, if you will. We have have also sided together once or twice, so take the comment as it was intended. Feel free to "jab" back. I'm a big boy and can take it;o)

Lee, Thanks for the kind words.

-- Anonymous, December 21, 2001

Philip,

"Why can't you pin a name to your post? Are you afraid of being identified with your position? I am so tired of people joining a thread without identifying themselves. It speaks volumes of where they are spiritually."

What is this obsession with using one's name? Does it matter? Someone may have a perfectly valid reason for not using their name on a public forum. Why does it speak volumes of where they are spiritually? I think that a person has the right to call themselves whatever they want as long as it's not offensive language.

Why not concentrate on the message rather than the messenger?

-- Anonymous, December 22, 2001

Hi Barry,

You wrote, "The fire of the Holy Spirit that was seen in Acts 2 is the same that can come onto believers today when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit comes." As one who ministered in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles for 18 years (before hearing and obeying the simple plan of salvation - repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of my sins), and as one who saw THOUSANDS of folks alledgedly receive the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" accompanied by what we called "Speaking in Tongues", it is a wonder to me that I never once saw "Tongues of Fire" appear on anyone's head. Have you personally viewed this manifestation?

brother Tom

~<>~

Dear Phil, You wrote, "A symposium had been scheduled by the CRA on the subject of the Charismatic Movement, but was canceled in favor of the 'That We May See Jesus' theme. Why? That is a question that many of us, including Thomas Tybeck would like to see answered." I know that CRA had begun plans for a Charismatic Symposium that has not yet come to pass. But, speaking for myself, I know Lee Mason quite well and trust his judgment implicedly. If I had any questions about this I would have addressed them to Lee. Would I like to see this topic discussed? You bet. And I'd be happy to contribute thoughts from my experience.

brother Tom

-- Anonymous, December 22, 2001

brother Tom,

No, I have not seen this manifestation. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (gift of the Spirit) does not necessitate "signs following" as the Pentecostals teach. The tongues phenomena was for a specific purpose. While it was sometimes included with the gift of the Spirit, that was/is not always the case.

-- Anonymous, December 22, 2001

Brother Tybeck:

You responded to Brother Barry Davis as follows:

“You wrote, "The fire of the Holy Spirit that was seen in Acts 2 is the same that can come onto believers today when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit comes." As one who ministered in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles for 18 years (before hearing and obeying the simple plan of salvation - repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of my sins), and as one who saw THOUSANDS of folks alledgedly receive the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" accompanied by what we called "Speaking in Tongues", it is a wonder to me that I never once saw "Tongues of Fire" appear on anyone's head. Have you personally viewed this manifestation?”

I just want to take a brief moment to say AMEN AND AMEN to your response. It was excellent. And I do doubt very seriously if anyone can say that they have seen this “manifestation” of the actual appearance of “cloven tongues likes as of fire” sitting upon anyone’s head. And these “cloven tongues as of fire” were not the “baptism of fire” that we read about in Matt. 3:11 for verse twelve makes it clear what that “baptism of fire” was in the following words:

“Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matt. 3:12).

Now that is the baptism in fire of which John clearly speaks. For some of the people that John spoke to would not repent and accept the baptism which he preached and enjoined upon them which was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). The apostles of Christ would receive the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which began to be promised by the prophet Joel in Joel 2:28, was promised by John (Matt. 3:11) and was promised again by Christ to the apostles (Acts 1:5-8). It was finally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and finished at the house of Cornelius for these are the only two occasions we have on record of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:1-21; 10:45-48; 11:15-18). This baptism was designed in the case of the apostles to grant them INSPIRATION and the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit in revealing and confirming for all time the word of God. “But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26). And again, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13). And it also granted them the power to confirm that their words were from God with “signs and wonders”. For we are told, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:17-20). And these signs did follow them that believed and accomplished the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God to us all. For we are told by the Hebrew writer, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him]; God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Heb. 2:3,4).

And because the church, during the time that God was revealing and confirming the word of God through those whom he had chosen for that purpose, would need direct guidance from the Holy Spirit. And such would be needed until God’s will was completely revealed and confirmed as being from him as a perpetual guidance for the Church. He granted that “through the laying on of the apostles hands” men would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead the church during this time by inspiration. And thus we see that it was “through the laying on of the apostles hands that the holy Spirit was given”. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:14-19). And again, “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).

And though I have not time at the moment to go into the details of this. It seems also that this was what the scriptures are most often referring to when it speaks of such things as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the “fullness of the Spirit” and being “filled with the spirit” etc. These were all indeed quite miraculous and designed to guide the church during the time before God’s word was revealed and confirmed. The purpose was to provide the means and method of inspiration and to confirm that those who thus spoke for Christ were indeed speaking the word of God, and to provide the inspiration necessary to know receive word from God to deliver to us. And it seems to me that it is indeed a huge mistake to try to possess that which God has not granted to us. It surely is absurd to pretend to have such gifts when God has not given them to us. It is at worst deliberate deception and at best self-delusion.

I wish I had more time to speak of these matters but my purpose was to say amen to your excellent response.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

And thus the apostles were the “wheat that would be gathered into the garner” and those disobedient souls who were rejecting the “counsel of God against themselves” by not being baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29,30) were the “chaff” which would be burned up with “unquenchable fire”. Thus, the baptism of fire spoke of by John the Baptist was the direct opposite of the baptism in the Holy Spirit promised to the apostles. And this “baptism in fire” is the only baptism in the New Testament that I am aware of that every Christian should AVOID at all cost!

And those who claim that this same event that occurred on the day of Pentecost is continuing today cannot tell of a single instance when they visibly saw these “cloven tongues like as fire” appearing on anyone’s head. Now, if this same thing is happening today where is it happening and who has seen it?

I thank you for your good comments in this regard for much deception is about today concerning these matters.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 22, 2001

Brethren:

It appears that my last post was posted accidentally before I had completed correcting it. Please place what I say at the end of that post in the context of what I was saying near the begining concerning the "baptsm of fire" spoken of by John the Baptist in MAtthew 3:11,12.

Thank you,

YOur Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 22, 2001

WHOA! SLOW DOWN EVERAYBODY!

It seems that we get in such a hurry to respond to someone else’s post that we even misread what that person actually said. It has happened twice already in this thread.

First of all Scott misunderstood my motive for this thread. Scott surmised that I was trying to create a theology of the majority. That was not my intention whatsoever. The only point I was trying to make is that, what has become the traditional view among conservative CC/ COC people is not necessarily the historical view of the RM. THAT’S ALL I WAS TRYING TO PROVE – at least at this stage.

Since Scott and E. Lee have appealed to the Scriptures, I will have to shift my emphasis to deal with the particular items they have addressed.

Another incident in this thread is that of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic fellow that posted under the name “sam” (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com). Which is it? Sam? Ruy? Pastor? Whatever… would you be so kind as to start your own thread on the subject of the Charismatic gifts? I would appreciate it and so would the others, I’m sure. This thread is dedicated to discussion the in-house issue of the universal gift of the Baptism in the Spirit vs. the “Indwelling gift of the Spirit” (a terminology foreign to the Scriptures). So, if you would kindly move over to another department, we would all be more than appreciative.

Dr. E. Lee is obviously quite versed on the Word and I have no argument with most of what he has to say. Yet, Dr. E. Lee has a hard time breaking away from the AMEN, AMEN corner and finds himself creating a theology of consensus when he does that. Please, brother, feel free to agree with whomever you would like to agree with but please address your remarks to the original post so that we may all benefit from your insights.

I am interested in what Dr. Tybeck has to say about this subject and would like to have come back on board, even if he has to start a new thread. COME BACK TOM! Yet, allow me to make this observation: You said to Barry:

“You wrote, ‘The fire of the Holy Spirit that was seen in Acts 2 is the same that can come onto believers today when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit comes.’ As one who ministered in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles for 18 years (before hearing and obeying the simple plan of salvation - repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of my sins), and as one who saw THOUSANDS of folks alledgedly receive the ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’ accompanied by what we called ‘Speaking in Tongues’, it is a wonder to me that I never once saw ‘Tongues of Fire’ appear on anyone's head. Have you personally viewed this manifestation? “ Did Barry actually say that? Please go back in read what he said. I think that you are confusing his thread with the one posted by the “pastor”.

Once again, I appeal to your ability to take the proverbial high-road on such a delicate subject – at least I will try to do just that. I propose the following:

1. Refrain from responding with reactionary remarks before giving them some serious thought. 2. Ignore anonymous posts that are aimed at frustrating the rest of us, thus keeping us from engaging in serious discussion.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Philip,

"Another incident in this thread is that of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic fellow that posted under the name “sam” (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com). Which is it? Sam? Ruy? Pastor? Whatever… would you be so kind as to start your own thread on the subject of the Charismatic gifts? I would appreciate it and so would the others, I’m sure. This thread is dedicated to discussion the in-house issue of the universal gift of the Baptism in the Spirit vs. the “Indwelling gift of the Spirit” (a terminology foreign to the Scriptures). So, if you would kindly move over to another department, we would all be more than appreciative."

I think you have me confused with someone else, possibly the person who signed themselves 'pastor'. My earlier post was in reply to your concerns re. people posting without a valid name.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2001

Brother Phillip:

I thank you for your response but cannot for the life of me understand exactly what you mean when you say:

“Dr. E. Lee is obviously quite versed on the Word and I have no argument with most of what he has to say.”

Brother, I appreciate you complement and agreement with “most of what” I had to say. And I cannot see how my statement of “AMEN AND AMEN” produces any more of a “theology of consensus” than your statement of agreement with most of what I said. And I must honestly inform you that I am not a “DOCTOR” of anything. I am a simple Christian who reads the word of God and does all that is in his power to obey it. I do not accept any such titles as “Dr”, “Reverend”, “pastor” etc. For I do not have the educational background to truthfully be called a Doctor. And Reverend is a religious title of honor that no man should wear. And I am not an elder in the church of our Lord and therefore cannot accurately be called a “pastor” according to the word of God. My name is sufficient and I ask that you please use it when referring to me. I do not know why you call me “DR” when I have not indicated in any way whatsoever that I am qualified in the least to wear any such title. Now, I am aware that you may be just chiding me a bit. But I want you to know that the title does not properly apply to me in any way.

Then you say:

“ Yet, Dr. E. Lee has a hard time breaking away from the AMEN, AMEN corner and finds himself creating a theology of consensus when he does that.”

I cannot imagine why you say that I have a “hard time breaking away from the “Amen Amen Corner”. It is a rare thing indeed for me to say “amen” in this forum. If anything were closer to the truth it would be that E. Lee Saffold has a hard time bringing himself to say “Amen” at all in this forum and when he can do so he is so excited about it that he might just over do it a bit!

Then you say:

“ Please, brother, feel free to agree with whomever you would like to agree with”

Brother Phillip, I do not need your permission to agree with anyone. I do not have to merely fell free. I AM FREE to do so and would do it with or without your permission. Free men do not need permission to do anything and you are right I do feel free because of the simple fact that I am free and will not allow anyone to grant or deny that freedom. For it is not within your power to “grant” me freedom in this forum nor is it within your power to deny it. We are free to agree with anyone we that wish to agree with and will do so on any occasion that we so desire. But we are pleased to note that this does not bother you too much.

Then you say:

“ but please address your remarks to the original post so that we may all benefit from your insights.”

I do not know if anyone would benefit from my “insights” but they will benefit from the teaching of the word of God on any subject. And Brother Scott and myself responded to exactly the things that you brought up in your original question. It was you who suggested in your original post that the (120) received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as follows:

“3. All who were present on the Day of Pentecost (120 in total) were baptized in the Spirit, although not all were apostles.”

Now those were YOUR WORDS from the original post that you wrote. And Both Brother Scott and myself have accurately corrected that misconception. And therefore your assertion that we did not “address” our “remarks to the original post” is simply a pathetically false assertion, now isn’t it? For we responded to YOUR SPECIFIC REMARKS made in your original post which we have accurately quoted above therefore we, without any doubt or question whatsoever were responding directly to “remarks” made by you in your original post. So it is hard for us to understand your complaint just here. Now, I do not have any “insights” to offer and therefore would not have any concern about whether anyone might benefit from what they perceive to be my “insights”. All I can offer is what God’s word has to say about these matters. And that is God’s inspiration, which is of far greater value than human “insight”. WE prefer the inspired words of God. For we very much suspect of human insight including that of our own if we have in any way inadvertently offered such.

SO, again I appreciate your response and your kind words of agreement in general with what we have said and our knowledge of God’s word. And you are free. Therefore you have the right to call me anything you wish. But I must correct anyone who might think that I am a “Dr.” of any sort for I am not any such thing. If you must call me such things then you must. But I reject it as being true and would prefer to not be called something, which is a lie. And I have responded directly to your post, as did Brother Scott. And I am convinced that the what God has revealed to us by inspiration is of greater value that anyone’s “insight” certainly the far inferior and feeble insights of one simple and very ordinary Christian man named E. Lee Saffold.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2001

Dear brother E. Lee,

The "Dr." bit was meant as a compliment. A "doctor", in the purest sense of the word, is simply one who is well versed in his field of knowledge. Many were doctors before the world of academia gave it it's present connotation. I'm sorry if I have offended you!

I suppose that you are right in calling me on the carpet however, as you have clarified your academic credentials for the benefit of all. Like yourself, I claim no degree or title for myself. Likewise, I profess a simple faith in Jesus Christ and I am a student of His Word.

Now, to get down to business, I will go over the "pronoun" argument one step at a time in a forthcoming post.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

Brother Philip:

You have said:

Dear brother E. Lee, The "Dr." bit was meant as a compliment. A "doctor", in the purest sense of the word, is simply one who is well versed in his field of knowledge. Many were doctors before the world of academia gave it its present connotation. I'm sorry if I have offended you!”

I thank you very much for the complement and for your making it clear to me that it was such. And you are right concerning the word doctor and its original connotation. I had not quite thought of it that way before you explained it. It is the way academia uses it that cased me to be sure to correct its use in reference to me. I only felt that in order to be truthful that I should clarify that, as academia uses the word, I do not have such credentials but your words did not offend me. I do sincerely apologize to you for what appeared to be disapproval of your words, which you had intended to be complementary.

Then you say:

“I suppose that you are right in calling me on the carpet however, as you have clarified your academic credentials for the benefit of all.”

It was not my intent to “call you on the carpet” and apologize for leaving that impression. I only wanted to clarify that I do not have the credentials of one who would be considered a “Dr.” in the academic sense.

Then you say:

“ Like yourself, I claim no degree or title for myself. Likewise, I profess a simple faith in Jesus Christ and I am a student of His Word.”

I sincerely believe that this is true and I am pleased to know it and thank God for your willingness to do His will in these things. And in fact, I have appreciated some of your post; especially your concern over the church of Christ being considered a “cult”. You have hit the nail squarely on the head concerning the importance of that issue. And I do in fact consider you a Christian and a brother in Christ because it appears you have in fact obeyed the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“Now, to get down to business, I will go over the "pronoun" argument one step at a time in a forthcoming post.”

I am sure that it will be interesting to read and surely well written and thought provoking. I do indeed look forward to reading it and examining it to see if it is true and in harmony with the teaching of God’s word.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

In response to the topic of recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost I can only testify of those things that I have both seen and heard. In 1977 I repented of my sins and was baptized in the wonderful name of my Lord Jesus Christ.I was then told to pray that I could recieve the Holy Ghost.I was also told if I did not speak in tounges then it meant that I did not recieve the Spirit.I was only 17 and believed whatever the elders told me. I was praying to speak in tounges but I could not,it made me feel inferior.Then one night a preacher asked if anyone wanted to recieve the Holy Ghost come up and he would lay hands on us and pray.When he prayed for me the most wonderful thing happend.I did not speak in tounges but the spirit of the Lord filled me ,and I magnified Him in praise and worship like they did at Cornelious house. I have since that day had several of the gifts of the spirit operate through me. I have studied on the recieving the Holy Ghost,for I need to know the truth. My findings have upset many in the Pentecostal church where I used to attend and later pastor.Here are my findings. The first place after Jesus rose from the tomb is Acts 1:15 .Ther were 120 gatherd together waiting for the promise Jesus spoke to them. In Acts 2:1-8 tells that when the day of pentecost was fully come, they were all in on accord waiting for what Jesus had spoken. In Luke 24:49 that they were to tarry in Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high. In Acts 2:4 they were all filled the 120 that were waiting were filled and spake in tongues as the spirit save utterance. The tongues were a sign to the unbelievers who heard and understood what was spoken in there own language. Acts2:11-12 they were speaking about the wonderfull works of God. Some of the people who heard them speak in other tongues than there own tongue said that they were drunk. But Peter said these are not drunk as you suppose but it is the fullfilling of the prophet Joels prophesy Acts 2:14-18. The next place recorded is in Acts 8 Philip had preached a great revival in Samaria and the ones that believed where baptized Acts 8:16. Acts 8:14-17 tells us that they recieved it after baptism by the laying on of hands by Peter and John. In Acts 10 we read where the Holy Ghost was given to the Gentiles at Cornelius house. This time the Holy Ghost came before they were baptized. Acts 10:44- 48 at this time they spoke in tongues and magnified God. My question is did they all speak in tongues,did they allmagnify God or did some speak in tongues and some magnify God? Remember tongues are a sign not to the believer but to the unbeliever.There were Jews there who did not believe the Holy Ghost was for the Gentiles so the tongues were a sign for the Jews who did not believe it was for the Gentiles.Acts.10:45 First Corn.14:20-22 The next account of anyone recieving the Holy Ghost is Acts.19:1-7 Paul came accros some diciples of John and asked them if they had recieved the Holy Ghost since they believed ,they said they did not even know about the Holy Ghost .Then Paul asked what baptism they had recieved they said Johns.Then Paul told them to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus,after being baptised Paul laid hands on them and they recieved the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues and prophesied .Again did all prophesy and some speak in tongues or did some speak in tongues and some prophesy.Again tongues is a sign to the unbeliever these did not know any thing about the Holy Ghost so tongues were a sign to them. Either way when the Holy Ghost comes it is a supernatural act of God and ther was a supernatural manifistation of Gods supreme power.So if some one present does not believe in recieving the Holy Ghost it may be nessary for God to demonstrate by tongues but not in all cases.For the Prophet Joel said your sons and daughters shall prophesy and to prophesy is to speak the words that God puts in your spirit. So just yeild yourself to God and let him have complete control.For even now is the promise of the Holy Ghost for you once you have fulfilled what Peter spoke in Acts.2:38-39 the promise is for you your children even to them that are far off even as many as the Lord your God shall call.Remember it is a gift from God just recieve what he has for you.Bless you all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002

Dear Chuck,

Though I appreciate what you have to say, but this discussion was not intended to be about SPIRITUAL GIFTS, or the operation thereof. It has to do with the universal gift of the baptism in the Spirit. I realize that in your mind, the two are connected, but this is not the case in Scripture.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002