A Theological and Exegetical Examination of Holy Spirit Baptism

[cyberjosh]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ!

I pray that our minds and hearts can be enlightened by all spiritual truth from the Father above, through the knowledge of His Son Jesus, and the inward working of the Holy Spirit in His holy saints!

I would like to thoroughly investigate here, in a serious truth-seeking effort, the biblical significance of Holy Spirit Baptism (I am phrasing it like that on purpose) in terms of, as the thread title implies, the theological significance of the word 'baptism' when used in relation to the Spirit in Scripture and its exegetical context (its specific meaning in the actual text it occurs in) as revealed for a specific purpose and at a specific time in God's salvation history. As you may infer I want to have what might be considered a more 'technical' theological discussion rather than just discussing the ministry of the Spirit in general, and this is not intended as a topic for discussing the gifts of the Spirit except inasmuch as it relates directly to the texts mentioning baptism in relation to the Spirit. I do not intend to exclude anyone from this discussion, but even as lay men and women we should be able to approach the Bible with a faithful and defined 'hermenutic', a defined approach for consistently reading Scripture, rather than just being all "over the board" in our interpretations of Scripture and winging our doctrine.

Very simply the the theological and exegetical question that I want to put forth for discussion is this:

Are (1) the Baptism with the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and Jesus (in the Gospels and at the beginning of Acts) - and - (2) the Baptism in the Spirit (by Jesus) for the purpose of uniting the believer with the Body of Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the exact same baptism? That is: are they the exact same in purpose and effect and do they describe the same action and ministry of the Spirit under the New Covenant in the believer, or is the use of the word 'baptism' as an immersion used to describe more than one aspect of the Spirit's New Covenant ministry in Scripture?

No doubt the similarties in the language exist, else this would not even be under discussion, but it is not always the case that the same word in the Bible is used in the same way with the same meaning, or even to describe the same theological concept, every time. Jesus' use of 'leaven' in a neutral/positive sense in one of his parables (Matthew 13:33) is one example of this. In Jesus' parables even the use of the 'seed' sown does not always represent the same thing from parable to parable (in some the seed refers only to the Word of God, and its acceptance or rejection is the focus, whereas in other parables there are evil seeds planted by the enemy in addition to good seeds). So also the soil or field in which the seed is planted is not always the same (the soil in the parable of the Seed & the Sower is the individual's heart, whereas in other parables "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38) and not the individual's heart).

This topic of Spirit Baptism has been one of intense interest to me for many years and I recently just purchased three books that are a study of the ministry of the Spirit and what aspects were newly manifested in the Spirit's ministry under the New Covenant in relation to what was promised in the Old Testament, thus examining how it relates to the OT and how it stands in continuity with God's eternal plan of salvation.

I did have a specific launching point for this discussion in mind from an article that was published in a theological journal written by Larry Pettegrew (Dean and Professor of Theology at Shepherd's Theological Seminary and author of The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit) that is entitled "Dispensationalists and Spirit Baptism": http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8b.pdf. Now, the examination of the history of different evangelical views on Spirit Baptism in the context of Dispensationalism is just a framework for the discussion at hand, and could just as easily have been penned in a similar article examining the Reformed stance. However I wanted to discuss his conclusion at the end, and his suggestion for understanding the many references to "baptism" in the New Testament in relation to the Holy Spirit.

He essentially says that there is Scriptural evidence (which I am strongly beginning to believe now after reading God's Indwelling Presence by James Hamilton) that the Baptism with the Spirit in Acts and its promise by John the Baptist and Jesus describe what was prophesied in the Old Testament of the "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit, and there is undeniable evidence at the least that Peter's mention of "pouring out" is used in relation to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, if not to identify that baptism outright as the promised outpouring.

Then, and this is my biggest theological struggle in trying to understand all this, he argues that because the Body of Christ metaphor is specific to the New Covenant and not the Old, that the purpose for which the Baptism in the Spirit is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (which in its broader context of the chapter is on the oneness and unity of the Body) is specifically a New Covenant ministry of the Spirit and is not the same as the pouring out of the Spirit, which he sees the baptism in Acts as being, but rather deals with the NT mystery of being "in Christ" and being united into His Body. Thus he sees the use of 'baptism' in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as being a different reference from the one in Acts, and its use as refering to another ministry of the Spirit, although obviously being more broadly related within the Spirit's overall New Covenant ministry in all believers (as with His other ministries of filling, anointing, sealing, etc). Romans 6:3 uses baptism in a similar metaphorical way for a "baptism into Christ" in the sense of being spiritually united with Christ.

I am seriously considering this interpretaion to be a theological possibility and proper interpretation of the two mentions of Spirit Baptism in the New Testament, as being the most contextually sensitive to the surrounding scriptural and doctrinal discussion in the actual books/epistles which they occur in, and as properly taking into consideration the matter of continuity with the Old Testament, which is a huge consideration which I neglected for many years. At the same time I still have reservations, since I am not clear on whether the Baptism in Acts could be seen as an external function and manifestation of the 'uniting of believers into Christ's body'.

Now the simple, and rather sloppy and hasty, assertion that could be made is that because the entire book of Acts is about the birth of the Church that "of course" the 1 Corinthians 12:13 baptism in the Spirit is in view in Acts as well. However I believe that a context sensitive approach to interpeting the passages in Acts & the Gospels and the passage in 1 Corinthians should be taken and thoroughly evaluated first, each independantly in their own context, before attempting to mesh them together. That is the proper way to approach doctrine, interpretation, and exegesis. If after that exegetical analysis (more colloquially referred to as "rightly dividing the Word") has been properly done it is found that the concepts, purposes, and functions of the ministry of the Spirit in both instances perfectly fit together as the same work of the Spirit then it may be conceded that they are one and the same as a doctrinal and theological concept or aspects of the exact same action.

Until then we must be willing for long enough to suspend our assumptions to discover what the Word of God really says. And that I am very eager to do.

Your thoughts, observations, and meditations on Scripture are very welcome in discussing this topic.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ!

I pray that our minds and hearts can be enlightened by all spiritual truth from the Father above, through the knowledge of His Son Jesus, and the inward working of the Holy Spirit in His holy saints!

I would like to thoroughly investigate here, in a serious truth-seeking effort, the biblical significance of Holy Spirit Baptism (I am phrasing it like that on purpose) in terms of, as the thread title implies, the theological significance of the word 'baptism' when used in relation to the Spirit in Scripture and its exegetical context (its specific meaning in the actual text it occurs in) as revealed for a specific purpose and at a specific time in God's salvation history. As you may infer I want to have what might be sconsidered a more 'technical' theological discussion rather than just discussing the ministry of the Spirit in general, and this is not intended as a topic for discussing the gifts of the Spirit except inasmuch as it relates directly to the texts mentioning baptism in relation to the Spirit. I do not intend to exclude anyone from this discussion, but even as lay men and women we should be able to approach the Bible with a faithful and defined 'hermenutic', a defined approach for consistently reading Scripture, rather than just being all "over the board" in our interpretations of Scripture and winging our doctrine.

Very simply the the theological and exegetical question that I want to put forth for discussion is this:

Are (1) the Baptism with the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and Jesus (in the Gospels and at the beginning of Acts) - and - (2) the Baptism in the Spirit (by Jesus) for the purpose of uniting the believer with the Body of Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the exact same baptism? That is: are they the exact same in purpose and effect and do they describe the same action and ministry of the Spirit under the New Covenant in the believer, or is the use of the word 'baptism' as an immersion used to describe more than one aspect of the Spirit's New Covenant ministry in Scripture?

No doubt the similarties in the language exist, else this would not even be under discussion, but it is not always the case that the same word in the Bible is a used in the same way with the same meaning. or even to describe the same theological concept, every time. Jesus' use of 'leaven' in a neutral/positive sense in one of his parables (Matthew 13:33) is one example of this. In Jesus' parables even the use of the 'seed' sown does not always represent the same thing from parable to parable (in some the seed refers only to the Word of God, and its acceptance or rejection is the focus, whereas in other paables there are evil seeds planted by the enemy in addition to good seeds). So also the soil or field in which the seed is planted is not always the same (the soil in the parable Seed & the Sower parable is the individual's heart, whereas in other parables "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38) and not the individual's heart).

This topic of Spirit Baptism has been one of intense interest to me for many years and I recently just purchased three books that are a study of the ministry of the Spirit and what aspects were newly manifested in the Spirit's ministry under the New Covenant in relation to what was promised in the Old Testament, thus examining how it relates to the OT and how it stands in continuity with God's eternal plan of salvation.

I did have a specific launching point for this discussion in mind from an article that was published in a theological journal written by Larry Pettegrew (Dean and Professor of Theology at Shepherd's Theological Seminary and author of The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit) that is entitled "Dispensationalists and Spirit Baptism": http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8b.pdf. Now, the examination of the history of different evangelical views on Spirit Baptism in the context of Dispensationalism is just a framework for the discussion at hand, and could just as easily have been penned in a similar article examining the Reformed stance. However I wanted to discuss his conclusion at the end, and his suggestion for understanding the many references to "baptism" in the New Testament in relation to the Holy Spirit.

He essentially says that there is Scriptural evidence (which I am strongly beginning to believe now after reading God's Indwelling Presence by James Hamilton) that the Baptism with the Spirit in Acts and its promise by John the Baptist and Jesus describe what was prophesied in the Old Testament of the "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit, and there is undeniable evidence at the least that Peter's mention of "pouring out" is used in relation to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, if not to identify that baptism outright as the promised outpouring.

Then, and this is my biggest theological struggle in trying to understand all this, he argues that because the Body of Christ metaphor is specific to the New Covenant and not the Old, that the purpose for which the Baptism in the Spirit is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (which in its broader context of the chapter is on the oneness and unity of the Body) is specifically a New Covenant ministry of the Spirit and is not the same as the pouring out of the Spirit, which he sees the baptism in Acts as being, but rather deals with the NT mystery of being "in Christ" and being united into His Body. Thus he sees the use of 'baptism' in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as being a different reference from the one in Acts, and its use as refering to another ministry of the Spirit, although obviously being more broadly related within the Spirit's overall New Covenant ministry in all believers (as with His other ministries of filling, anointing, sealing, etc). Romans 6:3 uses baptism in a similar metaphorical way for a "baptism into Christ" in the sense of being spiritually united with Christ.

I am seriously considering this interpretaion to be a theological possibility and proper interpretation of the two mentions of Spirit Baptism in the New Testament, as being the most contextually sensitive to the surrounding scriptural and doctrinal discussion in the actual books/epistles which they occur in, and as properly taking into consideration the matter of continuity with the Old Testament, which is a huge consideration which I neglected for many years. At the same time I still have reservations, since I am not clear on whether the Baptism in Acts could be seen as an external function and manifestation of the 'uniting of believers into Christ's body'.

Now the simple, and rather sloppy and hasty, assertion that could be made is that because the entire book of Acts is about the birth of the Church that "of course" the 1 Corinthians 12:13 baptism in the Spirit is in view in Acts as well. However I believe that a context sensitive approach to interpeting the passages in Acts & the Gospels and the passage in 1 Corinthians should be taken and thoroughly evaluated first, each independantly in their own context, before attempting to mesh them together. That is the proper way to approach doctrine, interpretation, and exegesis. If after that exegetical analysis (more colloquially referred to as "rightly dividing the Word") has been properly done it is found that the concepts, purposes, and functions of the ministry of the Spirit in both instances perfectly fit together as the same work of the Spirit then it may be conceded that they are one and the same as a doctrinal and theological concept or aspects of the exact same action.

Until then we must be willing for long enough to suspend our assumptions to discover what the Word of God really says. And that I am very eager to do.

Your thoughts, observations, and meditations on Scripture are very welcome in discussing this topic.

God Bless,
~Josh

The first thing you need to do is burn those three books you have recently bought.
Otherwise you only be spinning your wheels.

 

[cyberjosh]

To further examine this issue I will utilize some books I have from the "New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology" series (or NAC for short) which has many different bible scholars, pastors, and theologians contributing to it from all over the US from various seminaries, and they often contain multiple chapters written by different authors with different view points on the same subject matter in an attempt to present a comprehensive view of the various existing approaches to interpretation. Some of these indeed represent different theological traditions and denominational stances that have been around for a very long time, but it is a great series for serious study on doctrinal matters.

First I will quote from a NAC series book called "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ". In considering all of Paul's references to baptism in his epistles Thomas R. Schriener writes in his chapter "Baptism in the Epistles" commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:13:

1 Corinthians 12:13. "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." [See Footnote 15]

This verse underlines the participation of all belivers in the baptism, and hence its centrality. It probably teaches that Christ is the baptizer, and he baptizes or immerses his people "in one Spirit." Some have suggested that the Spirit is the one who does the baptizing, but if we look at the parallel passages in the NT, the element into which one is baptized is always communicated by the preposition "in" (Greek: en), whether the element into which one is plunged is water or the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16).

Paul is almost certainly speaking of the time of conversion here, for Jesus immerses in the Spirit so that his people are incorporated in the body of Christ. The second half of v. 13 expresses the same reality. At conversion, believers drink of one Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is the mark of induction into the people of God (Gal. 3:1-5), and hence Jesus' work of baptizing with the Spirit occurs at the threshold of the Christian life.
...
Jesus' baptism with the Spirit is not restricted to only some believers. Paul emphatically teaches that all believers have been baptized regardless of their ethnic background or social status.

[Footnote 15: The translation here is mine. In defense of the interpretation adopted here, see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 605-606. For a survey of scholarship on the verse, see A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 997-1001.]

(pgs. 71-72)

I believe that this is a good starting point for understanding 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Next I will post something from another NAC book that comments on the baptism mentioned in Acts and its relation to the outpouring of the Spirit mentioned in the Old Testament.

 

[cyberjosh]

The first thing you need to do is burn those three books you have recently bought.
Otherwise you only be spinning your wheels.

Reading theological works is not bad (and we are on a theology forum right now), and in fact some have helped me correct wrong doctrine in the past because of their systematic examination of Scripture where I have missed something. It would be foolish for me to think that I could not learn truth about Scripture from another believer. Why else would any of us be here on this board? The very Church itself is for edification of the saints. Of course it takes discernment by comparing an interpretation to Scripture that will bear out a book's truthfulness or not. Sometimes if you hear a spiritual truth that you have never heard spoken before or mentioned in a certain way (such as when it is spoken when someone is preaching) you can still yet discern its truthfulness by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. That concept is difficult to describe to unbelievers but the Spirit can stir our heart and conscience when we hear truth.

I understand the concern for looking strictly to the source: which is Scripture. It is helpful however when you have many groups of Christians begin discussing the matter and all have different opinions to have some order in the "chaos". Trust me, I moderated these boards for three years and I've seen many such threads descend into interpretational chaos.

Quoting other people's words is no different than you quoting my OP like you just did, except that books are printed on paper. Imagine that they were here in the forum saying the very thing I quote. Its no different than your or my discussing the topic online.

P.S. Please do not derail this topic, and stick to discussing the OP. Please feel free to PM me.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Next here is a word study from James Hamilton in his NAC series book God's Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments in Appendix 3 which examines all the verbs used in relation to the Holy Spirit in Luke & Acts. Here is his particular entry on ekcheo or "to pour out":

I Will Pour Out My Spirit

The verb ekcheo/ekchunno occurs only three times in Acts (2:17, 33; 10:45). All three uses of the verb involve Peter, and all three references to the Spirit being "poured out" are eschatalogical in nature in that they refer to the fulfillment of Joel 3:1-5 (Eng. Joel 2:28-32). This terminology for the Spirit's coming derives from Joel 3:1-15 in Acts 2:16-21.

In response to the extraordinary events that took place on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter explained what was happening with the words, "This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel" (2:16). Peter then quotes, "And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour (ekcheo) my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). By stating, "This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel" (2:16), and by indicating that what was spoken concerned "the last days (2:17), Peter clearly communicates that the eschatalogical outpouring of the Spirit promised by Joel was happening at last. The Spirit is now available to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus (2:38) because Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, has received the promise from the Father, and has poured out (ekcheo) the Spirit resulting in what the crowd saw and heard (2:33).

Later in Acts, when Luke recounts Peter's proclamations to Cornelius' household (10:34-44), we are told that "the believers of the circumcision who had come along with Peter were amazed because even upon the Gentiles the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out" (10:45).

When Peter defends his decision to eat with the uncircumcised (11:3), he compares the response to his message to what he and the others had experienced on the day of Pentecost (11:15). The "outpouring" of the Spirit experienced by the Gentiles in Acts 10 is identified with the "outpouring" of the Spirit experienced by the Jews from every nation under heaven (2:5, 17-18) recounted in Acts 2. When ekcheo is used in Acts 10, the reader hears an echo of the fulfillment of Joel 3:1-5 as proclaimed by Peter in Acts 2:16-36. Thus the verb ekcheo overlaps with baptizo, erchomai, and eperchomai to emphasize the eschatalogical nature of the gift of the Spirit, available to the Jew first (Acts 2), but also to the Gentile (Acts 10).

(pgs. 188-189)

Here he sees the baptism and pouring out of the Spirit as overlaping, and thus both refering back to the prophecy in Joel 2. This interpretation seems much more contextualized by seeing its relation to the Old Testament and how Peter associates it with the Old Testament pouring out, rather than just seeing it as something mentioned for the first time on John the Baptist's lips. There was an expection for the Spirit to be poured out that was associated with the end times in the Old Testament, and in many of those same prophecies Israel was promised a Davidic King and Kingdom based in Jerusalem. And so it would make sense then that the first question out of the disciple's mouth after Jesus tells them, "John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5) is “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). This indicates that this promise of baptism was associated in their minds with Old Testament promises, hence why Jesus could also refer to it as "the promise of the Father" (Luke 24:49).

This is open for further investigation, but the question now is how do the baptism in Acts 1 and the baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 relate to one another?

 

[ezra]

lot understand the Holy Spirit Baptism. as the evidence speaking in tongues. this is age old debate in the Church 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves 4 or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. personally i see it as receiving the holy spirit at our new Birth. then some see infilling of the spirit as tongues also. to be filled would be controlled-led. all this is my opinion as i have studied and understand.

This is open for further investigation, but the question now is how do the baptism in Acts 1 and the baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 relate to one another?

the same . of course this will be widely debated . the spirit empowers us to live the Christian life . not every one is going to agree


John the Baptist baptism was external the baptism of the spirit is internal

 

[cyberjosh]

lot understand the Holy Spirit Baptism. as the evidence speaking in tongues. this is age old debate in the Church 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves 4 or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. personally i see it as receiving the holy spirit at our new Birth. then some see infilling of the spirit as tongues also. to be filled would be controlled-led. all this is my opinion as i have studied and understand.

the same . of course this will be widely debated . the spirit empowers us to live the Christian life . not every one is going to agree


John the Baptist baptism was external the baptism of the spirit is internal

Thanks Ezra for the reply.

Yes, there are some interesting considerations as to how tongues was used as a sign when the Spirit was given.

This means that if the Baptism with the Spirit in Acts was the outpouring promised in Joel 2:28-29 that either tongues was an additional manifestation not foretold in Joel and the other prophets or that perhaps the fact that the Jews from all those nations said "we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God" (Acts 2:11) is a fulfillment of "And your sons and daughters will prophesy" (Joel 2:28) both being a Holy Spirit enabled utterance to declare God's works (declaration of the things of God is what prophecy is) before others. This would mean that, in this case, the earthly tongues that they spoke in were a form of prophecy to each of them!

If that indeed is a valid way of interpreting the Scripture it indeed reaffirms the continuity with the Old Testament promises.

And I certainly agree with you that the Holy Spirit empowers us to life the Christian life! Thus Jesus said to the disciples, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:8) and every Christian is given this divine power to partake of as a portion of their heritage as sons and daughters of God.

 

[BornAgain]

The Bible does not actually use the term "baptism of the Spirit" very often. John the Baptisthttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/johnthebaptist.html predicted that Jesushttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/jesus.html would come and baptize with the Spirit and with fire: Matt 3:11 Mark 1:8 Luke 3:16 John 1:33. In Acts 1:5 Jesushttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/jesus.html recalled John's words, and told His followers that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirithttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/holyghost.html not many days from then. The events of the day of Pentecost ten days later seem to be the obvious fulfillment of His words in Acts 2. The only other mention in Acts 11:16 refers back to Pentecost, explaining that Cornelius, the first Gentilehttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/gentiles.html convert, had an experience very similar to the Pentecost happenings.

While these scriptures make it clear that the believers in Acts 2 experienced a baptism of the Spirit, we do not find a clear explanation of what that baptism means. And we do not know whether there were other works of the Spirit that were happening at the same time.
The clearest explanation of the baptism appears in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Paulhttp://christiananswers.net/dictionary/paul.html is dealing with a situation where the Corinthian church was splitting over the issue of spiritual gifts. Paul states, "We're all one! Don't divide up into cliques!" And to prove his point, he explains, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
His main point? All believers share the reality of being baptized by the Spirit.
What does it do? It makes us part of the body of Christ, the Church.
When did it happen? If every believer has been baptized in the Spirit, then it must happen at the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

Greetings CyberJosh!

Can you show why we must conclude that the BHS spoken about in Acts is necessarily different than what Paul was addressing to the Spirit Filled group of believers in Corinth?

Let's consider a scenario where Paul was speaking to a body of believers who were known (by him) to be Spirit Filled. The sentence, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit," does not necessarily mean that the baptism became "universal" at some point. It could simply mean that Paul was appealing to their known common experience. I fail to see where this means that all Christians must be considered to have been baptized in the Holy Ghost during the conversion experience. Certainly the bible shows that this isn't in fact the case. How can we conclude otherwise? But nobody is saying that the Promise of the Father is restricted. The promise of the Father is given to all, even as many as the Lord shall call.

Jesus spoke to his disciples (those whom He had already died for) and said, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” But does this mean that only those certain Disciples can expect to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? No. The Promise is to as many as the Lord shall call.

Gentiles
Acts 11:15-17
15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" NIV

The Samaritans
Acts 8:14-17
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. NIV

How do we make sense of Paul's question, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" if all believers are filled at the "threshold of the Christian life." All of the scriptural examples of the BHS speak of this as a separate and distinct experience.

Disciples at Ephesus:
Paul asked, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (NIV)

Acts 19:1-7
19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. NIV

 

[Sparkey]

Pastor Jim Feeney, Ph.D. writes:

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit Is For You Today

http://www.jimfeeney.org/baptism-Holy-Spirit-filled.html

There are many ways to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Be open to God to fill you with the Holy Spirit in any context which He places before you.

• At the first Pentecost (see Acts 1:14 with Acts 2:1), those who received were gathered together, apparently in prayer. It was a group setting into which the Lord sovereignly poured out His Spirit.

• At Cornelius’s house (Acts 10:44), right in the midst of Peter’s anointed sermon they were all baptized with the Spirit.

• In Ephesus (Acts 19:6), they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit through the laying on of Paul’s hands.

• The variety is obvious. You can receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit in any of a number of ways:

• Another believer lays hands on you and prays for you to receive. This is how the apostle Paul was filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17).

• You may be all alone in your room, or even alone driving your car down the road. I know several people who were filled with the Spirit in one of those ways.

• You can be in a church meeting, where preaching and prayer and worship bring faith to a high level, and you receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit after responding to the preacher's invitation. This is how I received in 1971.

• In sum, anywhere that you find yourself, in an atmosphere of love and worship and seeking after all that the Lord has for you, you can receive!

The Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit is for today! It is “for you”!

 

[ezra]

if were filled of the spirit then we are controlled by the spirit >led of the spirit

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello BornAgain,

The Bible does not actually use the term "baptism of the Spirit" very often. John the Baptist predicted that Jesus would come and baptize with the Spirit and with fire: Matt 3:11 Mark 1:8 Luke 3:16 John 1:33. In Acts 1:5 Jesus recalled John's words, and told His followers that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from then. The events of the day of Pentecost ten days later seem to be the obvious fulfillment of His words in Acts 2. The only other mention in Acts 11:16 refers back to Pentecost, explaining that Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, had an experience very similar to the Pentecost happenings.

Thank you for this simple but important observation! You are very right that it is mentioned only twice. We can however infer that what it describes also takes place in Acts 8 and Acts 19 with the events mentioned there because of other terms (most of them verbs) also used to describe the occurance of those baptisms in the Spirit in Acts 2 and 10 (which use different terms in the actual fulfillment of the baptism - thus denoting an overlap/similarity in meaning) such as "poured out" (ekcheo) and "received" (lambano) as well as the designation "gift" of the Spirit, which do appear in the other accounts.

While these scriptures make it clear that the believers in Acts 2 experienced a baptism of the Spirit, we do not find a clear explanation of what that baptism means.

You said it! And therein lies one of the most frustrating doctrinal problems in all the New Testament (IMO), hence why there is so much disagreement about it. I have begun to see some context clues more recently though that I think hold the key to its interpretation, so that it is not an "uninterpretable" doctrine. The most important of which is its association with "pouring out" (ekcheo) which Peter took from the prophecy in Joel and applied it to the baptism event, hence I think it should be seen as the fulfillment of that Old Testament promise. And what could be more appropriate than God keeping His Word and his saints indicating and acknowledging when it has happened?

The clearest explanation of the baptism appears in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Paul is dealing with a situation where the Corinthian church was splitting over the issue of spiritual gifts. Paul states, "We're all one! Don't divide up into cliques!" And to prove his point, he explains, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

Here is what I want to say on 1 Corinthians 12:13. First of all I completely agree with you that 1 Corinthians 12:13 describes what happens "the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian". This is exactly the teaching of Paul and he is not limiting that statement to the Corinthians. Also 1 Corinthians 12:13 has a striking parallel in Galatians 3:27-28 which has the same terminology, except that it mentions Christ in place of the Spirit, and also it importantly mentions, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free" (Galatians 3:28) exactly as 1 Corinthians 12:13 does, and Galatians 3:27-28 is also speaking of all who have believed in Christ as having received that baptism into oneness in the body. Being united into the Body of Christ is a universal Christian reality, this is undeniable. Some are not in it while others are outside the body (John 15:5-8), and 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27-28 describe that uniting of all believers into the body of Christ. It happens to use 'baptism' to describe that uniting into the body in both passages. It is not some secondary experience for some believers.

Here is what I think needs to be said for comparing the baptism in Acts to the baptism mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13:

If the baptism in Acts is a secondary experience, as some assert (particularly taking evidence from the Samaritans experience of receiving the Spirit after their conversion in Acts 8:14-17), then it cannot be the same baptism as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13, because 1 Corinthians 12:13 does describe what happens upon every conversion.

So there can be two completely different conclusions/outcomes, depending on the interpretation of the Acts account.

I actually believe that Acts does not teach that the Spirit is given secondarily to conversion as an overall doctrinal teaching, since even in the Samaritans' case it was an exception because of the transitional nature (as the disciples' walk with Jesus during his earthly ministry was before the the Spirit was given) of God giving his Spirit to the different people groups as a salvation-historical event, and also the need for the Apostles to be there at that critical moment in history (even Peter - an Apostle - was present when the Spirit fell on Cornelius and the Gentiles before they were water baptized, and he authoritatively gave witness to the Jews of it in Acts 11 so that it could not be denied) because of their authority to give the Spirit by laying on of hands (which however did not happen for Cornelius and the Gentiles - thus is not a "model"). I believe that past those initial events of giving the Spirit to different people groups (Israelites, Gentiles, Samatians) that everyone receives that Baptism of the Spirit in Acts (whatever that may be) when they believe, else we cannot match it up with any other known doctrine in Scripture and it becomes a "mysterious" or isolated doctrine. If that is the case that the Acts baptism does happen at conversion for believers today, then it significantly opens up the possibility of 1 Corinthians 12:13 being associated with the baptisms in Acts. [Note my additional challenge for making that association below.]

I know that not everyone is going to agree with that, however I will put the ultimatum out there in any case.

His main point? All believers share the reality of being baptized by the Spirit.
What does it do? It makes us part of the body of Christ, the Church.
When did it happen? If every believer has been baptized in the Spirit, then it must happen at the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian.

I appreciate your straight forward addressing of this issue. I think perhaps the only final thing preventing me from fully accepting that 1 Corinthians 12:13 describes exactly what happened in Acts is that the baptism in Acts seems to focus on the external effects and empowerment of the believers, whereas Paul (in his typical, theologically deep way) seems to focus on the inward spiritual and unseen realities of the body of Christ. And since Acts is a historical account it does not often deviate into pure doctrinal and theological issues like that. But if we can associate the 'empowerment' and the 'unifying into the body' ministries of the Spirit then I think you can make a good case to associate the Baptism in Acts with the one in 1 Corinthians 12:13. I will put that out there as a challenge for everyone!

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

Hi Sparrowhawke,

Greetings CyberJosh!

Can you show why we must conclude that the BHS spoken about in Acts is necessarily different than what Paul was addressing to the Spirit Filled group of believers in Corinth?

Let's consider a scenario where Paul was speaking to a body of believers who were known (by him) to be Spirit Filled. The sentence, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit," does not necessarily mean that the baptism became "universal" at some point. It could simply mean that Paul was appealing to their known common experience. I fail to see where this means that all Christians must be considered to have been baptized in the Holy Ghost during the conversion experience. Certainly the bible shows that this isn't in fact the case. How can we conclude otherwise? But nobody is saying that the Promise of the Father is restricted. The promise of the Father is given to all, even as many as the Lord shall call.

Jesus spoke to his disciples (those whom He had already died for) and said, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” But does this mean that only those certain Disciples can expect to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? No. The Promise is to as many as the Lord shall call.

Gentiles
Acts 11:15-17
15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" NIV

The Samaritans
Acts 8:14-17
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. NIV

How do we make sense of Paul's question, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" if all believers are filled at the "threshold of the Christian life." All of the scriptural examples of the BHS speak of this as a separate and distinct experience.

Disciples at Ephesus:
Paul asked, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (NIV)

Acts 19:1-7
19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. NIV

If you would be so kind, please refer to my response that I just made to BornAgain as I think it clarifies by view on 1 Corinthians 12:13 and addresses your statement, "I fail to see where this means that all Christians must be considered to have been baptized in the Holy Ghost during the conversion experience", by interpreting the meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:13 in parallel to Galatians 3:27-28. Please also note my all-bold sentance in that post with the words hilighted in red.

You may respond to what I said in that post.

Thanks!
~Josh

 

[BornAgain]

Hello BornAgain,



Thank you for this simple but important observation! You are very right that it is mentioned only twice. We can however infer that what it describes also takes place in Acts 8 and Acts 19 with the events mentioned there because of other terms (most of them verbs) also used to describe the occurance of those baptisms in the Spirit in Acts 2 and 10 (which use different terms in the actual fulfillment of the baptism - thus denoting an overlap/similarity in meaning) such as "poured out" (ekcheo) and "received" (lambano) as well as the designation "gift" of the Spirit, which do appear in the other accounts.



You said it! And therein lies one of the most frustrating doctrinal problems in all the New Testament (IMO), hence why there is so much disagreement about it. I have begun to see some context clues more recently though that I think hold the key to its interpretation, so that it is not an "uninterpretable" doctrine. The most important of which is its association with "pouring out" (ekcheo) which Peter took from the prophecy in Joel and applied it to the baptism event, hence I think it should be seen as the fulfillment of that Old Testament promise. And what could be more appropriate than God keeping His Word and his saints indicating and acknowledging when it has happened?



Here is what I want to say on 1 Corinthians 12:13. First of all I completely agree with you that 1 Corinthians 12:13 describes what happens "the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian". This is exactly the teaching of Paul and he is not limiting that statement to the Corinthians. Also 1 Corinthians 12:13 has a striking parallel in Galatians 3:27-28 which has the same terminology, except that it mentions Christ in place of the Spirit, and also it importantly mentions, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free" (Galatians 3:28) exactly as 1 Corinthians 12:13 does, and Galatians 3:27-28 is also speaking of all who have believed in Christ as having received that baptism into oneness in the body. Being united into the Body of Christ is a universal Christian reality, this is undeniable. Some are not in it while others are outside the body (John 15:5-8), and 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27-28 describe that uniting of all believers into the body of Christ. It happens to use 'baptism' to describe that uniting into the body in both passages. It is not some secondary experience for some believers.

Here is what I think needs to be said for comparing the baptism in Acts to the baptism mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13:

If the baptism in Acts is a secondary experience, as some assert (particularly taking evidence from the Samaritans experience of receiving the Spirit after their conversion in Acts 8:14-17), then it cannot be the same baptism as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13, because 1 Corinthians 12:13 does describe what happens upon every conversion.

So there can be two completely different conclusions/outcomes, depending on the interpretation of the Acts account.

I actually believe that Acts does not teach that the Spirit is given secondarily to conversion as an overall doctrinal teaching, since even in the Samaritans' case it was an exception because of the transitional nature (as the disciples' walk with Jesus during his earthly ministry was before the the Spirit was given) of God giving his Spirit to the different people groups as a salvation-historical event, and also the need for the Apostles to be there at that critical moment in history (even Peter - an Apostle - was present when the Spirit fell on Cornelius and the Gentiles before they were water baptized, and he authoritatively gave witness to the Jews of it in Acts 11 so that it could not be denied) because of their authority to give the Spirit by laying on of hands (which however did not happen for Cornelius and the Gentiles - thus is not a "model"). I believe that past those initial events of giving the Spirit to different people groups (Israelites, Gentiles, Samatians) that everyone receives that Baptism of the Spirit in Acts (whatever that may be) when they believe, else we cannot match it up with any other known doctrine in Scripture and it becomes a "mysterious" or isolated doctrine. If that is the case that the Acts baptism does happen at conversion for believers today, then it significantly opens up the possibility of 1 Corinthians 12:13 being associated with the baptisms in Acts. [Note my additional challenge for making that association below.]

I know that not everyone is going to agree with that, however I will put the ultimatum out there in any case.



I appreciate your straight forward addressing of this issue. I think perhaps the only final thing preventing me from fully accepting that 1 Corinthians 12:13 describes exactly what happened in Acts is that the baptism in Acts seems to focus on the external effects and empowerment of the believers, whereas Paul (in his typical, theologically deep way) seems to focus on the inward spiritual and unseen realities of the body of Christ. And since Acts is a historical account it does not often deviate into pure doctrinal and theological issues like that. But if we can associate the 'empowerment' and the 'unifying into the body' ministries of the Spirit then I think you can make a good case to associate the Baptism in Acts with the one in 1 Corinthians 12:13. I will put that out there as a challenge for everyone!

God Bless,
~Josh

Hi Josh,

Thank you for your feedback...I certainly learned a lot looking into it and appreciate your enthusiasm and wisdom on the topic.

BornAgain

 

[Blev]

Pastor Jim Feeney, Ph.D. writes:

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit Is For You Today

http://www.jimfeeney.org/baptism-Holy-Spirit-filled.html

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ!

I pray that our minds and hearts can be enlightened by all spiritual truth from the Father above, through the knowledge of His Son Jesus, and the inward working of the Holy Spirit in His holy saints!

I would like to thoroughly investigate here, in a serious truth-seeking effort, the biblical significance of Holy Spirit Baptism (I am phrasing it like that on purpose) in terms of, as the thread title implies, the theological significance of the word 'baptism' when used in relation to the Spirit in Scripture and its exegetical context (its specific meaning in the actual text it occurs in) as revealed for a specific purpose and at a specific time in God's salvation history. As you may infer I want to have what might be considered a more 'technical' theological discussion rather than just discussing the ministry of the Spirit in general, and this is not intended as a topic for discussing the gifts of the Spirit except inasmuch as it relates directly to the texts mentioning baptism in relation to the Spirit. I do not intend to exclude anyone from this discussion, but even as lay men and women we should be able to approach the Bible with a faithful and defined 'hermenutic', a defined approach for consistently reading Scripture, rather than just being all "over the board" in our interpretations of Scripture and winging our doctrine.

Very simply the the theological and exegetical question that I want to put forth for discussion is this:

Are (1) the Baptism with the Spirit promised by John the Baptist and Jesus (in the Gospels and at the beginning of Acts) - and - (2) the Baptism in the Spirit (by Jesus) for the purpose of uniting the believer with the Body of Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the exact same baptism? That is: are they the exact same in purpose and effect and do they describe the same action and ministry of the Spirit under the New Covenant in the believer, or is the use of the word 'baptism' as an immersion used to describe more than one aspect of the Spirit's New Covenant ministry in Scripture?

No doubt the similarties in the language exist, else this would not even be under discussion, but it is not always the case that the same word in the Bible is used in the same way with the same meaning, or even to describe the same theological concept, every time. Jesus' use of 'leaven' in a neutral/positive sense in one of his parables (Matthew 13:33) is one example of this. In Jesus' parables even the use of the 'seed' sown does not always represent the same thing from parable to parable (in some the seed refers only to the Word of God, and its acceptance or rejection is the focus, whereas in other parables there are evil seeds planted by the enemy in addition to good seeds). So also the soil or field in which the seed is planted is not always the same (the soil in the parable of the Seed & the Sower is the individual's heart, whereas in other parables "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38) and not the individual's heart).

This topic of Spirit Baptism has been one of intense interest to me for many years and I recently just purchased three books that are a study of the ministry of the Spirit and what aspects were newly manifested in the Spirit's ministry under the New Covenant in relation to what was promised in the Old Testament, thus examining how it relates to the OT and how it stands in continuity with God's eternal plan of salvation.

I did have a specific launching point for this discussion in mind from an article that was published in a theological journal written by Larry Pettegrew (Dean and Professor of Theology at Shepherd's Theological Seminary and author of The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit) that is entitled "Dispensationalists and Spirit Baptism": http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8b.pdf. Now, the examination of the history of different evangelical views on Spirit Baptism in the context of Dispensationalism is just a framework for the discussion at hand, and could just as easily have been penned in a similar article examining the Reformed stance. However I wanted to discuss his conclusion at the end, and his suggestion for understanding the many references to "baptism" in the New Testament in relation to the Holy Spirit.

He essentially says that there is Scriptural evidence (which I am strongly beginning to believe now after reading God's Indwelling Presence by James Hamilton) that the Baptism with the Spirit in Acts and its promise by John the Baptist and Jesus describe what was prophesied in the Old Testament of the "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit, and there is undeniable evidence at the least that Peter's mention of "pouring out" is used in relation to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, if not to identify that baptism outright as the promised outpouring.

Then, and this is my biggest theological struggle in trying to understand all this, he argues that because the Body of Christ metaphor is specific to the New Covenant and not the Old, that the purpose for which the Baptism in the Spirit is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (which in its broader context of the chapter is on the oneness and unity of the Body) is specifically a New Covenant ministry of the Spirit and is not the same as the pouring out of the Spirit, which he sees the baptism in Acts as being, but rather deals with the NT mystery of being "in Christ" and being united into His Body. Thus he sees the use of 'baptism' in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as being a different reference from the one in Acts, and its use as refering to another ministry of the Spirit, although obviously being more broadly related within the Spirit's overall New Covenant ministry in all believers (as with His other ministries of filling, anointing, sealing, etc). Romans 6:3 uses baptism in a similar metaphorical way for a "baptism into Christ" in the sense of being spiritually united with Christ.

I am seriously considering this interpretaion to be a theological possibility and proper interpretation of the two mentions of Spirit Baptism in the New Testament, as being the most contextually sensitive to the surrounding scriptural and doctrinal discussion in the actual books/epistles which they occur in, and as properly taking into consideration the matter of continuity with the Old Testament, which is a huge consideration which I neglected for many years. At the same time I still have reservations, since I am not clear on whether the Baptism in Acts could be seen as an external function and manifestation of the 'uniting of believers into Christ's body'.

Now the simple, and rather sloppy and hasty, assertion that could be made is that because the entire book of Acts is about the birth of the Church that "of course" the 1 Corinthians 12:13 baptism in the Spirit is in view in Acts as well. However I believe that a context sensitive approach to interpeting the passages in Acts & the Gospels and the passage in 1 Corinthians should be taken and thoroughly evaluated first, each independantly in their own context, before attempting to mesh them together. That is the proper way to approach doctrine, interpretation, and exegesis. If after that exegetical analysis (more colloquially referred to as "rightly dividing the Word") has been properly done it is found that the concepts, purposes, and functions of the ministry of the Spirit in both instances perfectly fit together as the same work of the Spirit then it may be conceded that they are one and the same as a doctrinal and theological concept or aspects of the exact same action.

Until then we must be willing for long enough to suspend our assumptions to discover what the Word of God really says. And that I am very eager to do.

Your thoughts, observations, and meditations on Scripture are very welcome in discussing this topic.

God Bless,
~Josh

In Acts 1:1-5 Jesus was only speaking to His apostles when He promised them "but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence". This promise was not made to anyone today.


From Jn 3:5 Jesus speaks of two elements 1)Spirit and 2) water that puts one in the kingdom. THose same two elements are found in 1 Cor 12:13 where Paul speaks of the Corinthians being born again. The bible is its own best commentary, so if we compare Jn 3:5 with 1 Cor 12:13 we get:

Jn 3:5--------------Spirit+++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor12:13----------SPirit+++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>in the body


Being "in the kingdom" and "in the body" are both equivalent terms, both represent a saved position. Since there is just one way to be saved then both verses MUST express the same idea and it is very clear to me these two verses are speaking of water baptism and not some kind of spirit baptism.

I know no verse where God promised those Corinthians they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. We know from 1 Cor 1:14,16 that Paul baptized some of the Corinthians himself. Since only the Lord can baptize with the Holy Spirit Paul must have water baptized them which is the same baptism of 1 Cor 12;13. Since from Eph 4:5 there is just one baptism in effect, water baptism would be that one baptism that the Corinthians were baptized with.


Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;..."

All flesh here does not mean every single person (or animal since animals have flesh). All refers to the two main groups of mankind where one was either a Jew or Gentile. The only two places in the NT where baptism with the HS takes place is in Acts 2 with the apostles (Jews) and Acts 10 Cornelius (Gentile). These two occasions where Jew and Gentile ie., all flesh fulfilled Joel's prophecy making baptism with the Holy Spirit obsolete.

From Mt 5:17,18 if Jesus did not fulfill the law and the prophets (including Joel's prohecy about God's spirit being pured out upon all flesh) then Jesus was not the Messiah and every jot and tittle of the OT is still in place and binding upon us all today. But Jesus did fulfill Joel's prophecy in Acts 2 and Acts 10 with 'fulfilled' meaning to bring to an end, to cease, to conclude making baptism with the Holy Sirit a fulfilled, ended, ceased, obsolete baptism.

One final point, in Acts 15:11 Peter said Jew and Gentile are saved in like manner way. The like manner way the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved was by water baptism in the name of the Lord for remission of sins and not by baptism with the Holy Spirit. (I know of no verse that teaches baptism with the Holy Spirit saves/remits sins).

 

[farouk]

It's the New Birth, John chapter 3.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

And I certainly agree with you that the Holy Spirit empowers us to life the Christian life! Thus Jesus said to the disciples, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:8) and every Christian is given this divine power to partake of as a portion of their heritage as sons and daughters of God.

In Acts 1:1-8 Jesus was only speaking to His apostles. In Jn 14 and 15 the apostles were promised the COmforter and that Comforter would only come to the apostles when Jesus first went away, Jn 16:7. In Acts 1 Jesus was leaving the apostles so that the Comforter would come to them. The Comforter would teach the apostles "all things, and bring all things to your (apostles) remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (apostles)", Jn 14:26. Again this was only a promise to the apostles.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Pastor Jim Feeney, Ph.D. writes:

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit Is For You Today

http://www.jimfeeney.org/baptism-Holy-Spirit-filled.html

My question(s) to Mr Feeney would be in what verse has anyone today been promised baptism with the Holy Spirit? Was the Euncuh lost since he was only water baptized and not baptized with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Webb]

By the time Paul wrote to the church of Christ in Ephesus there was but one baptism, Eph.4:5. That means there cannot be two, three or more baptisms today. Holy Spirit baptism as per John the Baptist and Jesus was a promise and a promise cannot be obeyed. Water baptism is a command, Matt.28:19,20. A command can be obeyed. The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19,20 is to continue to the end of the world according to Jesus. Thus, in a "nutshell" the "one baptism" is that of water and it being for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38.

God bless