The Holy Spirit in Acts according to Acts

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.

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

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.

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

No, I put scripture first, and pointed out one can have a number of opinions scripture does not support. I labeled speculation as speculation.

If you can find a specific verse do so. I will agree that much of this conversation has been childish, though.

This is rude.


I agree it is childish.

I would ask for you to consider some changes to your own behavior.
-- It is not a sin for people to discuss the Spirit without mentioning Jesus.
-- If someone doesn't mention evangelism in a particular post, there is no reason to imply the person has done something wrong.
-- If asked for a specific scripture to back up a statement you make, either provide it or say that you can't. Don't ask someone to read the book and do your work for you when you made the point. The other person probably read the book and knows it is not there.
-- It is okay to admit when you are wrong.
-- Don't say rude things. Look for opportunities to be conciliatory rather than to go loggerheads.

I'll admit I need to follow the advice myself, especially the last point.

907 βαπτίζω baptizo bap-tid’-zo
from a derivative of 911; verb; TDNT-1:529,92; {See TDNT 123 }
AV-baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
++++
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows
the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
(Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

We have 907 and 911. In acts we also have pletho which is in Acts 2:4 translated filled.

Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I have great concern for those who do not see the Holy Spirit as the One who quickens and generates the new life in Christ.

Did you or they ever experience the John 16:8-11 presence of the Holy Spirit when they came to Christ?

I provided it...a number of times...I don know anymore if you are purposely being difficult or if there is something a bit off in your understanding...

It is not rude saying that your opinions of me...are just that...opinions... I don´t know how that is rude.

It is not rude saying that your opinions of me...are just that...opinions... I don´t know how that is rude.

No, I put scripture first, and pointed out one can have a number of opinions scripture does not support. I labeled speculation as speculation.

If you can find a specific verse do so. I will agree that much of this conversation has been childish, though.

1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue a does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, b but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, c unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

so what do we learn here?

it is good to desire spiritual gifts

speaking in tongues is not Acts all over again...note v 2

if speaking in tongues a person does so by the Holy Spirit...note the capital 'S' v 2

the one who prophecies, v.3 exhorts everyone...in prophesying...meaning exhortation in most cases and not foretelling something

if a person is speaking in tongues, they edify themselves, if a person exhorts or prophecies, they edify the congregation or gathering

Paul would like everyone to speak in tongues..v 5..which places a high value on this gift, but he would prefer that everyone is edified and not just an individual. however, he goes on to say that if the tongues are interpreted, then they are equal in value

6Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

Paul further explains why tongues should be interpreted or used privately. He indicates he values their desire for gifts of the Spirit and encourages this by saying they should try to excel in those that build up the body

13For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, d say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.

Paul sums up what he has indicated should be the order for the use of tongues in church. he tells them to pray to be able to interpret...nowhere does Paul give any indication that he believes they should just be quiet and not use tongues nor does he castigate them in any way that would indicate he is angry or that there is jealousy or any other negative influence at work.

there is no indication they were prophesying over each other either. further, there is a misinterpretation of the word prophesy if a person is using it to indicate revelation rather than exhortation. Paul does not use the word revelation

rather he congratulates them on their desire for spiritual gifts but cautions proper use of same

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

again, he expounds on the importance of understanding and his concern that ALL should benefit from the gifts of exhortation...prophecy and tongues with interpretation

But is there ever any passage where 'pletho' is translated as 'baptized'. I do not follow your argument. How does this create confusion?

Also, I think you are making a strawman argument here. I believe the Spirit has a role in conversion. The idea of the Spirit drawing people, doing the things mentioned in John 16, and having a role in conversion is something I have certainly heard in Pentecostal preaching. I suspect there are Charismatics who teach these things, too. Who are the posters or other people saying the Spirit is not involved in conversion?

This has been clarified repeatedly, but 'classical Pentecostals' and a lot of Pentecostals view 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' to refer to outpouring, empowerment, etc. of/by the Spirit, and not to the soteriological (salvation-related) work of the Spirit in the life of the believer.

I have highlighted in blue, and enlarged the portion of your post that I am responding to
No. Not fully true...you are leaving out the part that Paul would rather could prophecy (that is, interpret what they are saying in tongues - 1 corinthians 14:5)...if they couldn´t interpret what they were saying, than, Paul in fact, said not to speak in the public assembly because it would be unintelligible to some and therefore NOT edifying to the BODY...that if they couldn´t interpret, their speaking in tongues was private edification...between them and GOD.

This already, from reading up to this point, is not correct

I have highlighted in blue, and enlarged the portion of your post that I am responding to
No. Not fully true...you are leaving out the part that Paul would rather they could prophecy (that is, interpret what they are saying in tongues - 1 corinthians 14:5)...if they couldn´t interpret what they were saying, than, Paul in fact, said not to speak in the public assembly because it would be unintelligible to some and therefore NOT edifying to the BODY...that if they couldn´t interpret, their speaking in tongues was private edification...between them and GOD.

This already, from reading up to this point, is not correct

It is interesting to me how you left off 1 Corinthians 14:5 and began with 1 Corinthians 14 :6 to support your comment that Paul wants everyone to speak in tongues

Not that I know of but it is used carelessly by those who hold to the second blessing and the necessity of a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit. They are creating doctrine on illusion and not on sound biblical teaching.

I think you are deflecting. If the John 16 ministry of the Holy Spirit was as important as scripture indicates then there would be far less energy consumed over the temporary use of three gifts in 1 Cor 12-14.

Christ commanded us to be witnesses of His saving grace and not to boast in gifts that ended.

! Corinthians 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.

You quoted me, then speaking in tongues. The only thing I disagree with what you wrote is that you seem to be taking 'prophecy' to mean interpreting a tongue, though Paul treats tongues and interpretation and prophecy as separate things in the passage. Other than that, I agree with the gist of what you wrote here.

Except the part you highlight was not in error since Paul does directly say he would that they all spake with tongues. In church, he wanted tongues interpreted.

No...no...no..
You think I only think that prophecy is done in tongues?!

And you imply that I think this...

Please don´t