The Holy Spirit in Acts according to Acts

I have taught that there are two words used in the original manuscripts to represent what the translators translated to be baptize. One in used primarily for Holy Spirit baptism because it indicates an immersion with no subsequent withdraw. This would be for Holy Spirit baptism or as you note immersion in doctrine.

The second word refers to dipping and not submerging like a sunken ship. This word is commonly associated with water baptism. When believers refer to Holy Spirit baptism they ought to know that it is a one time immersion without ever returning to the prior state. That being the fact there can only be one true baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other word where many confuse baptism is really filling in the original manuscripts. I attribute this to simple lazy exegesis of the word of God.

Filling and baptism are not the same. There is one baptism and many fillings if we allow the Lord to use us to minister in His name. Our one baptism is unto eternal life. The many fillings are for service and sanctification.

My fear is that there are many more tares than wheat in what is supposed to be the church. My hope is that they are the seed that fell in among the thorns and simply are not able to grow to maturity.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And if there is any part of the passage that indicates that the people in the Corinthian church were 'calling out' (talking over each other or talking at the same time) while prophesying, you could point that out. You could also point out any parts where one members is 'lording over' another.

Or you could concede the point. I think people would respect you even more for that than changing the subject and pretending the conversation never happened, btw.

1 Cor 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Admonition to speak one at a time. So there is no confusion. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. No admonition is necessary if there is not a problem. You do not fix what isn't broken.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I don´t care for your suggestion, sir. Respect? For what? what do I need respect for? I´m just pointing to the scripture which clearly INDICATES that there was no order, that people were shouting out their prophecies, and NOT ONE OR TWO were waiting for each other to finish their prophecy, and Paul, who wrote letters as issues arose in each and every baby church, instructs them in the future to do so...
Clearly there for ANYONE to read

Jealousy, I follow this one, I follow that one...please sir, your OPINION on whether you think these people were looking down their nose at their brothers and had forgotten that THEY WERE NOT BAPTIZED INTO MEN...men were men...what mattered was that they were baptized INTO CHRIST

Because of their dissension and attitudes and their giving too much credit to their leaders, they indeed were thinking themselves better, or better equipped, or better suited with gifts than their brother...

And the nature of fleshly men, is to try to outdo the other...

Which, by their behavior, Paul reminds them...they WERE NOT acting according to the SPIRIT and were clearly making manifest that they were fleshly and worldly...

Read again, ALL of 1 Corinthians..
Thank you

Or, we could create a thread and bible study of 1 Corinthians...

Better yet, shall we post the definition of what it means.... to lord it over another

I have not come across this in any Greek word studies I have done. In this verse, the words of our Lord Jesus about John baptizing in water and the apostles being baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence, in Acts 1:5, the same Greek lexeme, inflected differently for grammar, is used to refer to baptism with water as with baptism with the Holy Ghost.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1-5.htm

You can see that G907, the code from the Strong's concordance is used in both cases. If you know of any specific verses or passages that use the two terms you describe that are translated 'baptism' that illustrate your point.

And preemptively, do not say I just want to argue if you do not have any verses to prove your point like you did last time. It is unbecoming. If you do have some passages that use these two terms, this could be helpful for the discussion or for Bible study.

I have to say I would be surprised if a word for 'filling' was translated as 'baptism' in any standard translation, but I would be very interested to see it if you can find such passages.

Also, just as a general comment to some of your posts in the recent past, in previous posts, you were equating various passages about the work of the Spirit to baptism with the Spirit. I asked for specific Biblical evidence for that. You responded that I just wanted to argue.

If you did have scripture that associated 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' purely with soteriological aspects of the work of the Spirit and not with empowerment, we probably would never have had this discussion in the first place. The issue would be settled. I had a conversation with a continuationist recently who associates baptism with the Spirit with salvation. One thing I realize that with my knowledge and study of scripture, I cannot show a series of scriptures that prove the argument either way. I suspect that is why you responded as you did, since you cannot prove your case either. But the Bible does say, "for we know in part", and there could be scripture we have read but are unaware of something. That scripture applies to you or I suspect you would reply with knowledge rather than contankerousness or defensiveness when pressed on an issue.

'Baptized with the Holy Spirit' refers forward from Acts 1 to the Acts 2 event. Peter uses it of what happened in the household of Cornelius as well. The Spirit came with the sound of a rushing mighty wind, with cloven fire upon their heads. They spoke in tongues, in the languages of those present. Peter refers to the outpouring of the Spirit on on flesh in Joel, sons and daughters prophesying. It's an 'empowerment' scenario-- demonstrations of the Spirit's power including speaking in tongues. In Acts 10, the Spirit fell on those Gentiles and the spoke in tongues and magnified God.

One view, taken by interpreters from different backgrounds, not just Pentecostals and Charismatics, is that 'baptized with the Holy Spirit' relates to empowerment by the Holy Spirit. You might find someone who says he goes to a 'Church of Christ' who says that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for today. Dave-L also takes this position. I think I've also encountered Baptists who think that way. This view does not equate 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' with the soteriological work of the Spirit in salvation.

Others equate the two. Is that justified from scripture? Can we get that from John the Baptist's words? If that were the case, then the scripture does not really give us terminology to describe the Acts 2 outpouring. We could call it 'receiving the Spirit' but that would limit us to Luke's terminology, and using that term for empowerment and not soteriology doesn't really seem to fit with Pauline terminology.

Trinitarian Pentecostals and probably most Charismatics who think about such things would say that the Spirit has a role in salvation. For example, I Corinthians 6 says now ye are washed...sanctified...justified...in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Some Pentecostals would say that at salvation, one receives the seal of the Spirit. But baptism with the Spirit may occur later.

Let us consider the terminology 'baptized with the Holy Spirit'. When we are baptized with water, we are completely soaked. It is one thing to drink a cup of water or to wash your hands. It is another to be baptized. That is the way Pentecostals view the verse-- not only to have the Spirit, but to be thoroughly submerged.

The idea that a Christian could have the soteriological aspects of the Spirit at work is not alien to Paul's writings. In Ephesians 1:13, but in Ephesians 5:17, he tells them to be filled with the Spirit.

If Pentecostals and some other groups are wrong and 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' refers to salvation, and empowerment goes unnamed in Acts 2-- which seems rather unlikely to me considering the context-- experience of Spirit empowerment is still a Biblical concept.

Why don't you just be straightforward and either post the verses that support your 'calling out' idea, or just concede that there are none? It seems like you constantly deflect like this whenever someone points out you are wrong or you cannot back up what you say with scripture.

Earlier, I put in a line to emphasize the role of Christ into a post, calling him the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, and you took it to mean I was implying you did not believe in something.

Interactions with you seem to be more about your not wanting to be wrong than about the content of what we are discussing.

I would suggest the greater position as the strength working with the lesser position the position of suffering, together finishing the one work .. the government of peace .Two working in harmony with each other.

Husbands love your wives like the unseen father. Wives summit to the strength he is offering .

Husbands do not lord it over the other part of the creation singular (not creations) as did Eve as if created separately the the remainder of the beast of the field male and female separately he them.

The new testament church reveal a virtuous woman as his bride .(male and female)

Men need come out of hiding. They represent our husband Christ not seen. Absentee fathers as husbands was not his goal

Presidente....Iḿ not interested in your many words....Iḿ sorry.

They are menś words...opinions., thoughts, imaginings...suggestions. Itś called Yeast. I´m not even sure it´s your opinions you are posting or the ideas of some other man who you might have read and accepted.

In any case, it is a man offering his suggestions of what GOD might have said and meant by HIS WORD.

I would stick to the scripture and let GODŚ WORD speak for us...

You do not need to add anything. Everything that we need is already there in 1 Corinthians.

Thank you

If one can find it by reading all of I Corinthians, then one can find specific verses that support what you say. So why don't you do that. You seem to be deflecting from the fact that you can't find any specific verses. Why not just say you can't?

Btw, memorize and quote all of I Corinthians. That will really help you find the verse you are looking for. I did that as a teen in a Bible quiz program, but I did not find what you are talking about. Not unless you are making assumptions based on the verse that I proposed.

iḿ not sure why you are saying this...

One can find ¨it¨?

But that isn´t really what we are hoping for to begin with.

Point all men to CHRIST or to the SCRIPTURES.
Let them find....HIM

Again, please don´t suggest that I need your help to memorize or remember anything

A man will see who is wrong by reading the scriptures for themselves.

You seem to be deflecting from not being able to find specific verses or being wrong, which is why I thought you might be concerned about respect.

But here, you showed what you are thinking a little. Paul said let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge in verse 30.

If you take this as Paul saying they were all talking at the same time, then why would he say two or three? Is Paul saying two or three prophets could speak at the exact same time and that was okay?

As I mentioned earlier, it could be that every phrase Paul mentions dealt with a specific problem. It could also be the case that Paul is giving the guidelines for tongues, intepretation, and prophesying because they were messing up on some points. He seems to hint at universal church practice, "What came the word out from you? or came it unto you only?" later in the passage, and he may just be telling them what to do, without every phrase pointing at some problem.

He spends a lot of ink on convincing them to interpret tongues, so it seems reasonable to infer they had a problem with that.

This feels a bit like a straw man since I had not stated an opinion on the jealousy point. I Corinthians 3 tells them they had envying. If that is what you mean by jealousy, there is no argument there. None of the points you raised proved they were prophesying at the same time.

They _might_ have been. That _might_ have been why Paul told them to prophesy one by on in. But he might have told them that even if they were not prophesying at the same time as part of his general description of orderly use of spiritual gifts in the church meeting.

This is a summary of some of the themes he addresses in the opening chapters. But Paul does not state that these bad attitudes manifested in people prophesying at the same time, one trying to prophesy louder than the other, or however you picture it. It could have happened, but the book does not say that it did.

Again, whatever it feels like to you...is WHAT it feels like to YOU...this does not make what you say about me TRUE...
Sir, I suggest the conversation end...it is unproductive and seems to me childish

I can find every specific sir...I am tired though, of your using the SCRIPTURES second to your opinions...