Yes, sorry! I meant they were baptized in holy spirit before they were baptized in water as opposed to being baptized in water first.*
Baptism with the Holy Spirit and eternal salvation
- Thread starter wattie
- 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.
If you do not have the Holy Spirit, according to Romans, you aren't a Christian. The Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our future inheritance at the moment of salvation. No Holy Spirit = not a Christian.
Upon reflection I think I see what you mean now . So apologies for my rash response. If you meant they believed before the giving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, then of course they believed In God ect. Today we believe then the Holy Spirit is given and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. If we are not sealed by the Holy Spirit then we will not be glorified.
I am studying the ways of the church before Constantine. They were closer to the teaching of Jesus and we can learn of them through the writings they left. They considered baptism a wonderful blessing given them by the Lord, powerful to wipe away sins and give the Holy Spirit. But they didn't consider it a hard and fast rule of the Lord.
I think that's the mistake most of the early Church Fathers believed. That in some sense baptism washed away sins and give the Holy Spirit ,which is false.
I think that deciding against the early fathers in favor of today's thinking is wrong because they were taught by the apostles, those who had been taught by Christ. We have had many many minds that have added to scripture with their own fleshly thoughts. You believe your interpretation has more accuracy, what do you base that on?
Have you studied what scripture tells us about what happens to us when we are baptized?
Right from the beginning false teachers , false bretheren , errors , incorrect information , deception . Thats just the book of Acts, Galations and Corinthians, Colossians and on and on . We read in places they needed to be reminded of the simplicity in Christ, That the Holy Spirit indwelled them , Not to mix law with grace , how to love, to judge, to grow , to be married, to be single, ect . Yes there's some good to learn from some believers who wrote things down. But they were not inspired. We see their mistakes in opposition to the Scriptures.
I dont choose ' today s thinking over the past ' I look at everything equally against the scriptures. Some of the errors of the early Church are still present today .And if you mean ' water baptised ' . We get wet lol
Yes I agree the Holy Spirit seals someone when the believe. But is this sealing baptism?
I see the times the Holy Spirit comes in the midst of a group of a believers also.. is this baptism?
I'm inclined to see it as empowerment for a group rather than baptism. But there is the case in Acts 2 of the Holy Spirit coming upon that group of believers and Jesus said He would baptise them with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Did Jesus say this ? And isn't fire Judgement?.
11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with FIRE :
12Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable FIRE
mat 3.11
When I read their reports and I read yours, I see your mistakes and their correct, in tune with scripture, reports. Until Constantine, the church grew in devotion to the church. It grew in spite of members being threatened with death.
Consider the immersion in water as cleansing the soul of sin. This prepares the soul to receive the Holy Spirit.
Just remember God is not bound by the Sacrament of Baptism. The Holy Spirit responds faithfully to ritual but can cleanse the soul without it.
Just remember God is not bound by the Sacrament of Baptism. The Holy Spirit responds faithfully to ritual but can cleanse the soul without it.
S
Scribe
Guest
Luke was a theologian. He wrote the Gospel of Luke first and then the Book of Acts. Luke traveled with and was a close associate of Paul. Luke understood both the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and that which Paul taught in his letters as well as the empowering work of the Holy Spirit as it related to the prophetic gifts and ministry.
Luke could have included many things in the book of Acts that he did not include. He specifically included the accounts about the Holy Spirit empowering the early church because he had an authorial intent in emphasizing certain theological truths. It becomes obvious to even a beginning bible student when reading through the book of Acts that there seems to be attention drawn to this normative experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. An exuberant, praising of God or magnifying God with an emotional demonstration that usually specifically says it included tongues and when this is not specifically mentioned, there is prophesying, magnifying God, etc.
I recently heard someone say that it is only mentioned 5 or 6 times as if that was not enough to make is such a big deal, which made me chuckle because the fact that it is mentioned 5 or 6 times in 28 chapters proves conclusively that it was A BIG DEAL to Luke.
I think that the reading of the book of Acts proves that there is a regeneration work of the Holy Spirit and then an additional empowering for ministry work of the Holy Spirit.
Remember Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit after his resurrection but before the day of Pentecost. That was the regeneration work. The day of Pentecost was the empowering work.
Remember also that Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but then he said.. wait in the city of Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on and then you will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea and the uttermost parts of the earth.
Today we are still being sent with the same great commission. You are saved, born again and have the Holy Spirit enter into you by faith to regenerate you and start you on this sanctification journey. And you are given the commission to go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, .. but then he also still says.. be endued with power from on high in order to fulfill that commission with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and this is a subsequent experience to regeneration.
Now I know that not everyone agrees with this, but this is my understanding of what Luke was faithful to present from the book of Acts.
If you want to know more or if you are interested in examining some of the best hermeneutics from highly respected top theologians published to date on this subject look up Lucan Pneumatology and authurs such as Roger Stronstad, Robert and William Menzies, Gordon Fee, as starters and you will find plenty of others from their bibliographies.
Luke could have included many things in the book of Acts that he did not include. He specifically included the accounts about the Holy Spirit empowering the early church because he had an authorial intent in emphasizing certain theological truths. It becomes obvious to even a beginning bible student when reading through the book of Acts that there seems to be attention drawn to this normative experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. An exuberant, praising of God or magnifying God with an emotional demonstration that usually specifically says it included tongues and when this is not specifically mentioned, there is prophesying, magnifying God, etc.
I recently heard someone say that it is only mentioned 5 or 6 times as if that was not enough to make is such a big deal, which made me chuckle because the fact that it is mentioned 5 or 6 times in 28 chapters proves conclusively that it was A BIG DEAL to Luke.
I think that the reading of the book of Acts proves that there is a regeneration work of the Holy Spirit and then an additional empowering for ministry work of the Holy Spirit.
Remember Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit after his resurrection but before the day of Pentecost. That was the regeneration work. The day of Pentecost was the empowering work.
Remember also that Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but then he said.. wait in the city of Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on and then you will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea and the uttermost parts of the earth.
Today we are still being sent with the same great commission. You are saved, born again and have the Holy Spirit enter into you by faith to regenerate you and start you on this sanctification journey. And you are given the commission to go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, .. but then he also still says.. be endued with power from on high in order to fulfill that commission with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and this is a subsequent experience to regeneration.
Now I know that not everyone agrees with this, but this is my understanding of what Luke was faithful to present from the book of Acts.
If you want to know more or if you are interested in examining some of the best hermeneutics from highly respected top theologians published to date on this subject look up Lucan Pneumatology and authurs such as Roger Stronstad, Robert and William Menzies, Gordon Fee, as starters and you will find plenty of others from their bibliographies.
Compare them with scripture. Whilst its a interesting study . Church history ect its not where we get truth from .
Oh yes.. you are right.. I got that mixed up.
A very popular verse to say that the Holy Spirit baptises people at eternal salvation is this one:
1Co_12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
I see this as water baptism though, and the body.. being a local church body. So a believer being baptised by immersion is allowed membership into a church
Why is it a local body? Because other references to the body in Corinthians are about the church AT Corinth.
(1Co 12:25) That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
(1Co 12:26) And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
(1Co 12:27) Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ye = the church at Corinth.
I would look for water ( H20 ) where that is obviously the case . The above verse is by the Spirit . No water mentioned no water Baptism .
While that's an admirable goal, there's a major issue with it. The mindset and worldview of the original audiences is very different from our own in addition to the myriad of language issues when translating from Koine Greek/Hebrew to English. The Scriptures you're reading are being filtered through a 21st century viewpoint so modern ideas are going to be overlaid over the text unless you purposely counteract such influences.
The earliest church is the mindset closest to the apostles so their interpretations should take precedence, seeking to understand where these things come from. Is there room for them to be incorrect in their assessment? Sure, but antiquity serves as an indicator of truth when it comes to doctrine.
This is especially true of things like baptism, where modern conception is to think of things abstractly and symbolically whereas ancient mindsets view things concretely. When the apostles declared to be baptized for sins, it's to be expected that this is more than a mere symbolic nicety.
I believe the scriptures are sufficient and trust that God can preserve his truth and intended to be understood in all languages. Yes we should realise the context and Audiences to whom it was written to ect .
You claim God failed at that unless you can point to the Church that teaches Truth without error as Jesus promised.