Your initial comment was that Paul said that the Holy Ghost is received once one believes. The record clearly states that Paul asked "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed? And as the record indicates Paul laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
Water Baptism-What Does God's Word Say?
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
I maintain there is a difference in the Pentecostal church with regards to “receiving the Holy Ghost”. The revelation of our baptism into Christ’s body was a MYSTERY revealed unto Paul first. Pentecostal believers needed to be identified with the Holy Ghost and his power to preach the gospel of the kingdom, and to separate themselves from unbelieving Israel. The Holy Ghost “falling” on folks identified them with the Holy Ghost. Yes, Paul too manifested the power of the Spirit, but we are not identified with the Holy Ghost today. The apostolic signs were necessary not only for kingdom ministry but also for the stablishment of the church.
Believers today need to be identified with the body of Christ and all blessing by grace through his finished work on the cross. The Holy Spirit places us into Christ. Our baptism identifies us with the body of Christ. This is the “one baptism” and “one body” that Paul speaks of, not the baptism at Pentecost.
Believers today need to be identified with the body of Christ and all blessing by grace through his finished work on the cross. The Holy Spirit places us into Christ. Our baptism identifies us with the body of Christ. This is the “one baptism” and “one body” that Paul speaks of, not the baptism at Pentecost.
In the first place, I don't believe in all the hang ups with the word salvation. When God saves, when we are accepted in the kingdom of heaven, it is the first step in our wonderful walk with the Lord. Baptism comes after that first step.
In infant salvation, the parent answers for the baby, with a promise to instruct that baby in the reality of God. I don't think God would tell a parent not to do that. If you ask if I think that this means the baby is saved for life because of his parents answering for him and the miraculous happening of baptism being complete then no, the person has to answer for himself.
In infant salvation, the parent answers for the baby, with a promise to instruct that baby in the reality of God. I don't think God would tell a parent not to do that. If you ask if I think that this means the baby is saved for life because of his parents answering for him and the miraculous happening of baptism being complete then no, the person has to answer for himself.
I guess I would ask them what they thought that meant. or did for them, and work from there.
I think you leave a door open by accepting someone where they are and continuing the discussion from there.
I wouldn't take issue with what they had already experienced. I'm more concerned about their future than their past.
I think you leave a door open by accepting someone where they are and continuing the discussion from there.
I wouldn't take issue with what they had already experienced. I'm more concerned about their future than their past.
Even Pentecostals understand that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a subsequent experience to salvation.
And typically acknowledge that we receive the indwelling Spirit at that time. The second experience, is for the
power of the Holy Spirit to come on us. (that's on, not in) Unfortunately, they tend to call someone who
has had this experience "Spirit-filled". And the terms are used interchangeably in the Bible.
And typically acknowledge that we receive the indwelling Spirit at that time. The second experience, is for the
power of the Holy Spirit to come on us. (that's on, not in) Unfortunately, they tend to call someone who
has had this experience "Spirit-filled". And the terms are used interchangeably in the Bible.
Pentecostal error?
We have been looking at Acts 19 about the disciples in Ephesus.
What happened when Paul laid his hands on them?
They already believed in Jesus and had been baptized in water in Jesus' name.
What was the purpose of what happened next? (if they already had all the Spirit they would ever get)
We have been looking at Acts 19 about the disciples in Ephesus.
What happened when Paul laid his hands on them?
They already believed in Jesus and had been baptized in water in Jesus' name.
What was the purpose of what happened next? (if they already had all the Spirit they would ever get)
D
(The Pentecostal error I was speaking of is with regards to the denominational term Pentecostal)
I don't have it all figured out, but I will share some thoughts again. These are just bullet points so don't assume anything okay, they are just talking points, I'm trying to make sense of it all too.
-There are definitely some dispensational differences in the book of Acts which many call a "transitional book".
-The disciples in Acts 19 are disciples according to John's baptism, clearly Jews. Anytime there is a laying on of hands it's a sign of apostolic authority. Jews in Acts never had the Spirit fall on them willie nillie.
-Why is it that the Holy Ghost always fell on the Jews according to an apostle's authority? It either happened by laying of hands or like Peter's command to repent and be baptized and they would receive the Holy Ghost.....BUT when it comes to Cornelius, it fell on his entire believing Gentile house without commands to be baptized from Peter, without the subsequent laying of hands. Isn't that interesting??? Certainly a sign of change.
-This is actually a great argument for explaining how the Holy Ghost 'falling' on folks (being baptized WITH the Holy Ghost) is linked to apostolic authority. "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given..." And today the Twelve apostles of the Lamb and the Apostle to the Gentiles are with the Lord, and they are the only apostles commissioned and empowered by Christ himself. This does not happen today.
-Hence, Paul's epistles have zero instruction for the church today for baptisms, laying of hands, etc... but he has come to revelations kept secret since the world began, God forming the one new man, the church made up of Jew and Gentile, apart from God's elect nation of Israel who is partially blind for a time. I know the answers are "dispensational" but making sense of all the details is another story.
I don't have it all figured out, but I will share some thoughts again. These are just bullet points so don't assume anything okay, they are just talking points, I'm trying to make sense of it all too.
-There are definitely some dispensational differences in the book of Acts which many call a "transitional book".
-The disciples in Acts 19 are disciples according to John's baptism, clearly Jews. Anytime there is a laying on of hands it's a sign of apostolic authority. Jews in Acts never had the Spirit fall on them willie nillie.
-Why is it that the Holy Ghost always fell on the Jews according to an apostle's authority? It either happened by laying of hands or like Peter's command to repent and be baptized and they would receive the Holy Ghost.....BUT when it comes to Cornelius, it fell on his entire believing Gentile house without commands to be baptized from Peter, without the subsequent laying of hands. Isn't that interesting??? Certainly a sign of change.
-This is actually a great argument for explaining how the Holy Ghost 'falling' on folks (being baptized WITH the Holy Ghost) is linked to apostolic authority. "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given..." And today the Twelve apostles of the Lamb and the Apostle to the Gentiles are with the Lord, and they are the only apostles commissioned and empowered by Christ himself. This does not happen today.
-Hence, Paul's epistles have zero instruction for the church today for baptisms, laying of hands, etc... but he has come to revelations kept secret since the world began, God forming the one new man, the church made up of Jew and Gentile, apart from God's elect nation of Israel who is partially blind for a time. I know the answers are "dispensational" but making sense of all the details is another story.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not aware of any such thing. Someone may have made up this story to embarrass him. Who would remember their infant baptism? Typically they make a big deal of being dressed up. They wear a christening gown for the occasion and keep it afterwards. It is never worn but the one day. It might help the man to talk to someone he can trust to tell him the truth. Someone who was there at the time, or was in the church at the time, to learn the truth. But basically, it is more important for the man to know Christ and to grow in him than to push baptism. He can be baptized when he is ready. More important that he be active in his Christian life than worry about this. IMHO
Thanks for your post.
I'll give you a little background and then address each point from my perspective. My aim is not to criticize or argue or say you are wrong. I will relate what I have learned about this.
I was raised Evangelical but have been in the Pentecostal church for the past 30 years.
The church I was raised in cautioned against speaking in tongues. In retrospect it was the fear of the unknown.
It wasn't until recently that I even knew what Cessationism even was. But this was the teaching that made the claim that the "sign" gifts were only for the Apostolic age. And that they had died with the Apostles. The things you are saying indicate to me that you are a victim of this same common teaching.
My parents were always supportive of Charismatics and Pentecostals.
They would attend our church faithfully, but then go to meetings in the evenings or other days with those who were teaching on the gifts and manifesting them. In doing so, my Mom had collected several shoe boxes full of sermon tapes. I was curious about these things and would borrow a box full and then go back for another.
This was enough to interest me in this. So I sought out a local church where I could go and see for myself.
Since I had been raised Evangelical, I wanted to have a solid biblical footing for all this. Unfortunately, the Pentecostals and Charismatics have historically done a poor job of this. Things are much better now, but 30 years ago it was tough going to get answers. I basically had to find my own answers. And I did.
Once I had that all squared away, I sought the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Interestingly, when I was a teen, Bill Bright had put out a tract titled: Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled Life?
This was the same man that wrote the famous gospel tract: Have you heard of the Four Spiritual Laws? So, he was a well-respected figure in Evangelical circles.
I never heard anyone complain about it, but the tract, Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled Life?, presented the filling of the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to initial salvation. Imagine that. And I remember praying the prayer as a teen and experiencing the filling. It was truly amazing. But the tract was not Pentecostal or Charismatic beyond that. There was nothing about speaking in tongues or manifesting any of the other gifts. (as I recall)
So, this is the position from which I will address your points. I need to leave for work shortly, So I will probably not complete my comments this morning.
I'll give you a little background and then address each point from my perspective. My aim is not to criticize or argue or say you are wrong. I will relate what I have learned about this.
I was raised Evangelical but have been in the Pentecostal church for the past 30 years.
The church I was raised in cautioned against speaking in tongues. In retrospect it was the fear of the unknown.
It wasn't until recently that I even knew what Cessationism even was. But this was the teaching that made the claim that the "sign" gifts were only for the Apostolic age. And that they had died with the Apostles. The things you are saying indicate to me that you are a victim of this same common teaching.
My parents were always supportive of Charismatics and Pentecostals.
They would attend our church faithfully, but then go to meetings in the evenings or other days with those who were teaching on the gifts and manifesting them. In doing so, my Mom had collected several shoe boxes full of sermon tapes. I was curious about these things and would borrow a box full and then go back for another.
This was enough to interest me in this. So I sought out a local church where I could go and see for myself.
Since I had been raised Evangelical, I wanted to have a solid biblical footing for all this. Unfortunately, the Pentecostals and Charismatics have historically done a poor job of this. Things are much better now, but 30 years ago it was tough going to get answers. I basically had to find my own answers. And I did.
Once I had that all squared away, I sought the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Interestingly, when I was a teen, Bill Bright had put out a tract titled: Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled Life?
This was the same man that wrote the famous gospel tract: Have you heard of the Four Spiritual Laws? So, he was a well-respected figure in Evangelical circles.
I never heard anyone complain about it, but the tract, Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled Life?, presented the filling of the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to initial salvation. Imagine that. And I remember praying the prayer as a teen and experiencing the filling. It was truly amazing. But the tract was not Pentecostal or Charismatic beyond that. There was nothing about speaking in tongues or manifesting any of the other gifts. (as I recall)
So, this is the position from which I will address your points. I need to leave for work shortly, So I will probably not complete my comments this morning.
Just a quick comment on this. Consider Ananias whom the lord sent to minister to Saul. He was not an Apostle. But when he laid hands on Saul, he received the Holy Spirit. Another good example was Timothy. How did he receive his spiritual gifts? (the church elders)
Acts 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”