I said this in response to CC1's thread 65+ People Baptized in Jesus Name this weekend
"That's good news! And how many were baptized with the Holy Spirit showing the initial evidence of speaking in other languages?
Jesus said one must be born of water AND Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 :-)"
CC1 Said: "You are born of water in your natural birth and of the Spirit when you repent and accept Christ as your savior. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is subsequent to salvation and an empowerment to living for God. Now that should set off a firestorm! If it does please make it another thread since this one is strictly on water baptism at my church."
______________
Is it possible(I think it is) that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, having the Spirit, receiving the Spirit, the Spirit coming upon someone, the Spirit coming, and many more actions of the Holy Spirit are not all the same thing? Surely there is a reason there are different descriptions for each occurrence. We have a command to "be filled with the Spirit" (literally be being filled with the Spirit, a continuous process). I just want to be filled today. That's more important than what happened 35 years ago.
1 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,
2 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.
So, one scripture trumps another?
How does Acts 19:1-2 show the Holy Ghost as being "subsequent" to salvation? Obviously, he didn't deem them to be saved without it.
The Samaritans believed and were baptized in Acts 8:12
they had received the Word of God according to verse 14
and yet had not received the HG according to verse 15-16
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Is it possible(I think it is) that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, having the Spirit, receiving the Spirit, the Spirit coming upon someone, the Spirit coming, and many more actions of the Holy Spirit are not all the same thing? Surely there is a reason there are different descriptions for each occurrence. We have a command to "be filled with the Spirit" (literally be being filled with the Spirit, a continuous process). I just want to be filled today. That's more important than what happened 35 years ago.
I Cor 12:4 - "diversities of gifts, same spirit" I Cor 12:6 - "diversities of operations, same God that worketh all in all" I Cor 12:8 - "word of wisdom and knowledge given by the same spirit" I Cor 12:9 - "faith and healing given by the same spirit"
My personal belief is that a person must repent of their sins, have their sins washed away in baptism and must be filled with the Holy Ghost in order to go to Heaven. Yep, I'm an Apostolic traditionalist on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
How does Acts 19:1-2 show the Holy Ghost as being "subsequent" to salvation? Obviously, he didn't deem them to be saved without it.
Agreed, nothing in that passage implies that the "certain disciples" were saved with--or without--the re-baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost. Obviously it needed to be done; Paul seemed to think it was important enough to introduce them to baptism in Jesus' name and being filled with the Holy Ghost. Now, why would Paul think that people who were already BELIEVERS and DISCIPLES needed to be re-baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost? Wasn't repentance enough?
The most important conclusion that can be drawn from Acts 19:1-2 regarding our doctrine is that repentance and believing are not synonymous with being filled with the Holy Ghost. 1. They hadn't even heard that there was a Holy Ghost--even though they had repented and were believers, and 2. In spite of the fact that they had repented and believed, Paul prayed for them and the Holy Ghost they hadn't yet heard of or experienced "came on them" and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. It was definitely a separate experience from repentance and believing.
I have always appreciated the respect that Paul showed those disciples, though. It's an important attitude that the overly-exclusive Apostolic church world should emulate.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
How is that "obvious"? He called them disciples. Said they believed.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Exactly. I have rarely seen a promise that didn't have an "if" to go with it. There are conditional promises in the Bible. Nothing is free in life.
My personal belief is that a person must repent of their sins, have their sins washed away in baptism and must be filled with the Holy Ghost in order to go to Heaven. Yep, I'm an Apostolic traditionalist on this issue.
Agreed, nothing in that passage implies that the "certain disciples" were saved with--or without--the re-baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost. Obviously it needed to be done; Paul seemed to think it was important enough to introduce them to baptism in Jesus' name and being filled with the Holy Ghost. Now, why would Paul think that people who were already BELIEVERS and DISCIPLES needed to be re-baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost? Wasn't repentance enough?
The most important conclusion that can be drawn from Acts 19:1-2 regarding our doctrine is that repentance and believing are not synonymous with being filled with the Holy Ghost. 1. They hadn't even heard that there was a Holy Ghost--even though they had repented and were believers, and 2. In spite of the fact that they had repented and believed, Paul prayed for them and the Holy Ghost they hadn't yet heard of or experienced "came on them" and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. It was definitely a separate experience from repentance and believing.
I have always appreciated the respect that Paul showed those disciples, though. It's an important attitude that the overly-exclusive Apostolic church world should emulate.
Good post, but don't make the mistake that Paul would have "included" anyone that didn't receive the truth of the Gospel. Luke 10:11 The people Paul prayed for readily received what he had to say.
Wasn't repentance enough? 
Linear Mode
