Baptism and holy spirit

Paul the apostle asked disciples
"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"
Still today a most pertinent and valid question.

When I spoke out in a new tongue by the Holy Spirit I knew with all certainty
that I had been baptised in the Holy Spirit.
My experience was exactly the same as I could read in Acts and the epistles.

I just discovered something that is very interesting and informative. (And everybody else has probably already discovered it. )
If you go to a members page, you can see on the right hand side, all the things they've given thumbs down/negative reaction to and all that they have approved/given good reaction to. It gives you a glimpse into the person without really speaking to them...just sort of...an indication of what they like and what makes them angry.

That is not possible. Let's take a look at that passage and see why Paul asked that question (which was specific to this group):

ACTS 19

CERTAIN DISCIPLES, NOT CHRISTIANS
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,

NEVER HEARD OF THE HOLY GHOST
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.

DISCIPLES OF JOHN THE BAPTIST BAPTIZED BY JOHN
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

JOHN'S WAS THE BAPTISM UNTO REPENTANCE FOR ISRAEL
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

NOW -- IN CONTRAST -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM WAS ADMINISTERED
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

A SPECIAL NEED, A SPECIAL ACTION, A SPECIAL PHENOMENON
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

A VERY SMALL GROUP
7 And all the men were about twelve.

So this was DEFINITELY NOT the norm. For the norm see Acts 2.

1. The Gospel was preached
2. Sinners were converted
3. Sinners received the gift of (or baptism WITH) the Holy Ghost
4. Sinners were then baptized with Christian water baptism
5. No laying on of hands by 3000 + converts
6. No speaking in tongues by 3000 + converts
7. No prophesying by 3000 + converts

Luv you too, SBG...

Also, your statement is not entirely true. Once you know the truth on a subject, there is no reason to change it.

G'nite.

2 and 3 are the same thing. When a person hears the gospel and believes it, he is sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13).

While they were probably baptized in water on the day of Pentecost, it is not necessary for salvation. It is by the spirit that we are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

Right. The laying on of hands is generally not needed.

While the Bible does not say whether or not the 3000 spoke in tongues or prophesied on the day of Pentecost, you cannot say with certainty that they didn't. They probably did later. Don't discount what Paul said:

1 Cor 14:
5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Water baptism by full immersion is a fundamental necessity - a commandment.

The problem is we most often think we have perfect, total knowledge and complete truth on a matter when we don't.
Love you too.
Good night.

Before sinners receive the Holy Spirit (and are then sealed) they must repent and be converted. So they are not the same thing.
Did I say water baptism was necessary for salvation? However it is necessary for those who have been saved by grace because it is Christ's command.
What they did later is not the issue. And Paul was addressing spiritual gifts within a church, not the conversion experience.

What Waggles is suggesting is that speaking in tongues is for all as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. However, in the book of Acts, there are just a few (actually two) instances where the ones who received the gift of the Holy Spirit immediately spoke in tongues

Simply eisigesis... you deciding scripture says what you want it to say. That is simply telling us that if we have the indwelling Spirit, we cannot say that Jesus is accursed... it has nothing to do with "speaking in tongues" at all.

Yes.... and it's silly to have that debate, since scripture... Paul... clearly teaches us that not all of us will have/manifest every gift. In fact, he even makes it sound as if each of us will likely have only one or two of the gifts. How many eyes/hands/feet/ears does a body need?

On a completely different note.... I really wish the website would go back to the "pink and blue" names, denoting gender.... I don't want to tell someone "thank you sis" and find out he's my brother. I suppose I could go to "thank you bro/sis"....

Ok... back to the argument discussion....

Maybe they felt it was something that, online, you should not have to divulge unless you wanted to? Or maybe they thought...it would make those dummies who come in here and send inappropriate message to ladies have to send them to women AND men, without knowing which is which? (Picture dcon saying, go ahead, punk, send ME one of those inappropriate messages )

nope you are just assuming that



if someone is lacking knowledge regarding the fact many saved brothers/sisters are filled with the Holy spirit without speaking in tounges

and they falsely accuse brothers/sisters of being unsaved like a devil would
it only means they are lacking knowledge and not actually attacking them but speaking what in their ignorance they believe to be true

and i believe her point was if someone like me resists these false accusations harshly

maybe its not my place to watch over these little ones in error


(you may have issues with being called a little one but i bet at 900 even adam knew he was just a child in the eyes of God)

It seems silly to me too, because it appears so clear when I read it. (I read the entire chapter again before bed and it was even more clear to me that it had ever been). I think if I had the gift of speaking in various tongues, I would not like it at all when others said, as has been said here, that everyone operates in all of the gifts. Because I would not want people to scoff at me, or think me deluded, and when a tongues speaker makes claims that so clearly are the opposite of the intent of a passage, they tend to group all tongues speakers together as deluded.

Edit: this was in response to the post by the dude in the nappy hat. You know, the one who looks a bit like sean connery.

Whenever I think of humility, it eludes me at every turn. There's no topic or subject on earth that can make me sit, blinking and dazed, like humility can. I believe no man can state that he is humble without giving away the fact that he isn't.

Sometimes I say to God, (in joking with Him) that He's not doing a real good job with me on the whole humility thing and that I think if He tries harder He can get it right. (I also tell Him to keep trying on a really bad weather day. )

speak for yourself


im so humble it hurts

but im really really tough so i dont mind

Remember that you said this when later today you find yourself with both feet and a baby grand piano in your mouth.

This all reminds me of one of my favorite stories. Teresa of Avila tells it.

She was traveling because of some business regarding one of her houses. (She was a prioress I think it's called). She had the most nasty cold and was feeling awful. (I might get some of this wrong, going by memory). It was raining torrents and the carriage got stuck in the mud and maybe one or two other things happened like she slipped in the mud and was filthy and wet.

She said, Lord, when you do these things to me I don't think anyone would listen when I recommend you to them. She says He replied, I treat all of my children like this.

A ceremonial commandment as a shadow . Shadows cannot make perfect, as a sign they point to the unseen who can.

I'm not sure you could call it a shadow. Shadows precede the coming thing. They speak of what is coming ahead of time.

I would say water baptism is more a...picture of a spiritual reality. All of the sacraments speak of spiritual realities. Until you experience the spiritual realities, they don't make much sense to you.