What is the Purpose of Spirit Baptism?

[Flutecrafter]

Originally Posted by Charnock

What is the purpose of Spirit baptism?

All of my life I've been led to believe that the Holy Ghost (tongues) was the outward evidence of the Spirit dwelling in a person. However, recently, I've heard several ministers state that the baptism of the Spirit is not a sign of salvation.

Is it a sign someone is saved? Is it a sign someone is justified? Or is it just an experience?

The purpose of the Holy Ghost Baptism, is power for service to the follower of Jesus.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

...That's surprising that this is new to you since you've been posting on AFF from the beginning alongside of many one-steppers who believe that at faith in Christ and repentance (which some of them say is one in the same) a believer receives the indwelling Spirit of Christ. None on this site as far as I can remember have ever explained why someone would go on to receive the baptism of the Spirit with the evidence of tongues once they have believed and received the Spirit at faith and repentance ...

1. Jesus commissioned 12 apostles and then another 70 (some call them apostles also) to preach the kingdom and work miracles in His name (Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-20) while He was on earth. They were not to go into all the world at that time. After His death, burial, and resurrection He again commissioned His followers to preach the kingdom and work miracles in His name but this time they were to go into all the world. He commanded them not to go out on their mission yet but to wait/tarry until they received a special empowering/enduement/clothing of power which He called a baptism in the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:1-8)

2. At one time after His resurrection the early church numbered over 500 according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6. About one fourth of these (about 120 according to Acts 1:15) tarried/waited until they received this empowering experience on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1-4. So, just looking at that I guess we would expect about one fourth of church members now to receive the Holy Ghost Baptism.

3. When Paul wrote his epistle to the church in Ephesus he called them saints and faithful in Eph 1:1. He also spoke of "our Father" in verse 2 so he evidently considered them to be born again. In verse 4 he said that he and they had been chosen before the foundation of the world. In verse 5 he spoke of them and him being predestined unto adoption. In verse 13 he said, "And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago." So, we know they were born again and had the Holy Spirit living in them. Then in chapter 5:17-19 he exhorted them to be filled with the Spirit (or to be ongoingly or continuously filled with the Spirit). This is understood by some to teach that there is a difference between being saved/born again/indwelt by the Spirit and a subsequent experience called a filling or empowerment or baptism in the Spirit. This subsequent experience is an empowering to help us better serve and minister for God.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It weakens the redeeming blood of the Lamb, doesn't it?

Some think so, others do not.

My pastor from 1957 until 1963/64 was Frank Curts. He was pastor of First Apostolic Church in Cincinnati and was district supt. of the UPC at that time. Before the formation of the UPC he was an official with the PAJC. In 1945 when the PCI and PAJC were meeting separately in St. Louis and considering a merger he was teaching at the PAJC conference. He was teaching with his Tabernacle chart behind him. This chart can be seen (but not very well) in the attachment to this post. While he was teaching, one of the ministers there (I don't remember who although I've heard Bro. Curts mention his name) asked something like "Where (or when) was the blood applied?" Bro. Curts pointing to the chart told him that there was blood several places in the tabernacle. It was applied to the altar (repentance); it was applied to the laver (baptism) and it was applied to the ark in the holy of holies (Holy Ghost Baptism). Then the man asking the question said, "We need to talk."

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Sam

Some think so, others do not.

My pastor from 1957 until 1963/64 was Frank Curts. He was pastor of First Apostolic Church in Cincinnati and was district supt. of the UPC at that time. Before the formation of the UPC he was an official with the PAJC. In 1945 when the PCI and PAJC were meeting separately in St. Louis and considering a merger he was teaching at the PAJC conference. He was teaching with his Tabernacle chart behind him. This chart can be seen (but not very well) in the attachment to this post. While he was teaching, one of the ministers there (I don't remember who although I've heard Bro. Curts mention his name) asked something like "Where (or when) was the blood applied?" Bro. Curts pointing to the chart told him that there was blood several places in the tabernacle. It was applied to the altar (repentance); it was applied to the laver (baptism) and it was applied to the ark in the holy of holies (Holy Ghost Baptism). Then the man asking the question said, "We need to talk."

There was only one point and specific time in the process where the blood was offered/applied for atonement. The atoning blood which was offered was either sufficient or insufficient and for 2000 years there wasn't a year in which the offered atoning blood was insufficient. Year after year, for 2000 years, the atoning blood was sufficient for a year.

In relating the OT tabernacle pattern to the New Covenant we actually do nothing within the tabernacle ourselves, it's all done for us for our benefit by someone else. The high priest and blood offering to be offered on our behalf has been offered for us but not by us. The question becomes, is this blood atonement offered for our redemption/atonement sufficient in and of itself or is it only partially sufficient? Does one's redemption need more and require more than the blood sacrifice offered by our high priest?

The question of the thread is "what is the purpose for Spirit baptism"? If the answer has anything to do with redemption or atonement for our sins then the atonement offering, the blood of the Lamb, is insufficient in and of itself.

That's a very troubling position to take, IMO.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

There was only one point and specific time in the process where the blood was offered/applied for atonement. The atoning blood which was offered was either sufficient or insufficient and for 2000 years there wasn't a year in which the offered atoning blood was insufficient. Year after year, for 2000 years, the atoning blood was sufficient for a year.

In relating the OT tabernacle pattern to the New Covenant we actually do nothing within the tabernacle ourselves, it's all done for us for our benefit by someone else. The high priest and blood offering to be offered on our behalf has been offered for us but not by us. The question becomes, is this blood atonement offered for our redemption/atonement sufficient in and of itself or is it only partially sufficient? Does one's redemption need more and require more than the blood sacrifice offered by our high priest?

The question of the thread is "what is the purpose for Spirit baptism"? If the answer has anything to do with redemption or atonement for our sins then the atonement offering, the blood of the Lamb, is insufficient in and of itself.

That's a very troubling position to take, IMO.

This position is based on a couple of things:
1. remission and forgiveness are two specific actions (even though the same Greek word is used for both and what is called "remission" in the KJV is called pardon or forgiveness in other versions)
2. all three steps i.e. repentance plus water baptism properly applied plus the Holy Ghost Baptism are necessary before sins are remitted and the person is saved/justified/born again.

I personally do not see it that way. In my understanding of the Scriptures, a person is forgiven and cleansed from sin when he/she believes in his/her heart that Jesus died and rose again and he/she calls on His name. That salvation experience is prior to and independent of both water baptism and Spirit baptism.

This is a fundamental difference among Oneness Pentecostals and that is where we use the terms "one-stepper" and "three-stepper." When the UPC was formed in 1945 the fundamental doctrine statement was written ambiguously enough that both one-steppers and three-steppers could merge into the new organization and continue to preach, teach, and even write articles for the Pentecostal Herald espousing both of those views.

In my opinion, we one-steppers and three-steppers should all respect one another well enough to embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and agree to disagree.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Sam

This position is based on a couple of things:
1. remission and forgiveness are two specific actions (even though the same Greek word is used for both and what is called "remission" in the KJV is called pardon or forgiveness in other versions)
2. all three steps i.e. repentance plus water baptism properly applied plus the Holy Ghost Baptism are necessary before sins are remitted and the person is saved/justified/born again.

I personally do not see it that way. In my understanding of the Scriptures, a person is forgiven and cleansed from sin when he/she believes in his/her heart that Jesus died and rose again and he/she calls on His name. That salvation experience is prior to and independent of both water baptism and Spirit baptism.

This is a fundamental difference among Oneness Pentecostals and that is where we use the terms "one-stepper" and "three-stepper." When the UPC was formed in 1945 the fundamental doctrine statement was written ambiguously enough that both one-steppers and three-steppers could merge into the new organization and continue to preach, teach, and even write articles for the Pentecostal Herald espousing both of those views.

In my opinion, we one-steppers and three-steppers should all respect one another well enough to embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and agree to disagree.

I agree, one steppers and three steppers should, in their disagreements, respect each other as children of God.

In your view, when does redemption take place?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I agree, one steppers and three steppers should, in their disagreements, respect each other as children of God.

In your view, when does redemption take place?

Redemption took place in the plan of God back before humans were ever created. In reality it took place when the Son of God died on the cross to redeem us. It took place personally for me on March 28, 1955 when I asked Jesus Christ into my life and He came in to dwell as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the earnest or engagement ring and is a seal to hold us until the redemption of the body (the first resurrection).

"13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him." Ephesians 1:13-14

or as it says in The Message:
"It's in Christ that you, once you heard the truth and believed it (this Message of your salvation), found yourselves home free—signed, sealed, and delivered by the Holy Spirit. This signet from God is the first installment on what's coming, a reminder that we'll get everything God has planned for us, a praising and glorious life."

[Norman]

The Spirit baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and other expressions are all used to refer to the same experience in Acts chapters 10 and 11. There is not a "Spirit baptism" separate from receiving the Holy Ghost.