What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

[rwb]

Have you seen this topic?

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit?

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit? Just to be clear, I do not question whether the believers in Samaria had received the "indwelling" Spirit when they believed. They were missing something else. Acts 8:14-17 NIV When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that...

www.christianityboard.com

What was happening in Samaria when Philip went there to preach of Christ to them?

The Samaritans heard and saw the miracles Philip preformed among them, casting out unclean spirits and healing the lame. Though they had great joy through Philip, they were also confounded and confused by a certain man named Simon. Simon practiced sorcery and bewitched the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great, "To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God." "And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries."

They believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and submitted to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Even Simon believed and was baptized. Though they professed belief of the Word Philip preached and were baptized in water. They had yet to receive eternal life that comes only through the Holy Spirit in us. Remember we must be born again of the Spirit to know and enter the Kingdom of God (Jo 3).

Lacking the power of the Holy Spirit how could they know with certainty that the power of God was in accordance to the Christ Jesus that Philip preached? They witnessed what could only be described as supernatural power from Simon also. Sending for Peter and John, who prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit then laying hands on them was further confirmation of who possessed the power from God to save. Once the Holy Spirit fell also on the Samaritans they no longer doubted that Philip had shown them the true power of God, and the apostles John and Peter left them with no more doubt.

Whether the Holy Spirit falling on the Samaritans was accompanied by the gift of speaking in unknown tongues is not clear. I believe there must have been some kind of physical manifestation, because it was power Simon physically saw, and thought he could offer money to the apostles that he too might have this power.

 

[Peterlag]

Interesting thought.
But no, this was the ministry of Philip.
Although, I suppose you could bring the same charge against him.
He was the one who baptized the Ethiopian eunuch.
Or add Samaria to your list of items that don't fit your premise?

/

I heard a teaching on it once where someone said Apollos was in that area and may have spoken to some. They brought out a map showing that Apollos did pass by that area.

 

[St. SteVen]

Whether the Holy Spirit falling on the Samaritans was accompanied by the gift of speaking in unknown tongues is not clear. I believe there must have been some kind of physical manifestation, because it was power Simon physically saw, and thought he could offer money to the apostles that he too might have this power.

Yes. They were looking for initial evidence.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

I heard a teaching on it once where someone said Apollos was in that area and may have spoken to some. They brought out a map showing that Apollos did pass by that area.

If that was the case, why hadn't they already been water baptized?
And are you claiming that Apollos knew nothing about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

/

 

[rwb]

Could this have something to do with Acts 18? There was a guy who only knew water baptism and was not he the guy who shared the Scriptures with the group of folks you're talking about who believed, but had no spirit. Perhaps it was Apollos not knowing the correct baptism for the Christians that started in Acts chapter two.

Acts 18:25
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

It seems to me that Apollos was a man of faith through what he learned from study of the Scriptures, the Law and Prophets. He was of old a man who believed the prophesy foretelling The Messiah, Deliverer would come to redeem the faithful. He would be the faithful of Old Covenant Israel having the Spirit abiding with him, but not yet in Him. It would appear that after Pentecost, Apollos, like all of Christ's disciples now was born again by the Spirit IN him, although he manifested no outward supernatural signs. But like John-the-Baptist this man was saved by grace through faith even before being born again by the Spirit in him.

John 14:16-17 (KJV) And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Acts 18:24-28 (KJV) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Notice the change in the doctrine Apollos taught after Aquila and Priscilla "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly". The new message Apollos taught the Jews publicly, "shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ."

 

[Peterlag]

If that was the case, why hadn't they already been water baptized?
And are you claiming that Apollos knew nothing about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

/

I don't know what the problem was. But here I'm suggesting your second choice. I'm guessing.

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't know what the problem was. But here I'm suggesting your second choice. I'm guessing.

Earlier I thought that you had claimed that the Samaritans had NOT been water baptized.
Right?

/

 

[Peterlag]

Earlier I thought that you had claimed that the Samaritans had NOT been water baptized.
Right?

/

I'm not claiming on this one. Again, I'm guessing. If the Word does not tell us then we do not know. I'm guessing maybe it was the guy that only knew the water and not Jesus Christ and so they did not get the spirit. Maybe it was Simon from the 8th chapter who got them screwed up in the sorcery he used on the people and Peter and John had to come over and clean the people up.

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm not claiming on this one. Again, I'm guessing. If the Word does not tell us then we do not know. I'm guessing maybe it was the guy that only knew the water and not Jesus Christ and so they did not get the spirit. Maybe it was Simon from the 8th chapter who got them screwed up in the sorcery he used on the people and Peter and John had to come over and clean the people up.

So, what is your position on water baptism in the church today?
Harmful, or not harmful?

/

 

[Peterlag]

So, what is your position on water baptism in the church today?
Harmful, or not harmful?

/

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

 

[St. SteVen]

To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

Water baptism is a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces? How so?

/

 

[rwb]

Water baptism is a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces? How so?

/

Water baptism is only contentious because of erroneous doctrine that teaches we need to be dunked, sprinkled or splashed with water for salvation. That is not the purpose for the ordinance that Christ commanded His disciples before He ascended to heaven. Rightly taught we find validation for both infant and profession for baptisms. We are called to go and first make disciples, then baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What is a carry-over from Old Covenant is the belief that 8-day old infants too should be incorporated into the body of Covenant people. Just as the Old Covenant Law had circumcision to set apart Israel from the world, so too some practice sprinkling of water on infants and children, not to eternally save them, but to bring them into the Covenant body with believers where they too could become disciples of Christ by grace through faith.

Catholics especially have really caused so much confusion regarding the ordinance that the battle between infant and believers baptism has waged on for far too long. In addition to the confusion caused by those who believer our infants and children must be sprinkled with water to be saved, is the notion that water baptism must take place after one has made a profession of faith. And if they are not dunked in the water they cannot be eternally saved by grace through faith alone. Neither of these are Biblical truths.

The reason the Institute called Church on earth has the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, apart from being instituted by our Lord, is that both point us to our Lord and Saviour. These show the world we live in, that the Body of Christ, called Church has come out of this world, and now belong to the spiritual Kingdom of God. It is a means of separating ourselves from those on the outside who are under the power of the world and live according to the fleshly desires.

 

[rwb]

What is your view on 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14?
Where the Apostle instructs believers about tongues.

In these chapters Paul is addressing a problem that had arisen in the Corinthian Church regarding spiritual gifts.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (KJV) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Paul argues that it is the Spirit that gives a diversity of gifts to members of the body that they may edify all. And that it is the Spirit that determines whom among the body are indwelt with certain/specific gifts. Being one body together with many differing members we have all (Jew & Gentile) through the same Spirit of God professed Jesus is Lord. Appearing to be less or more important in the body because of the spiritual gift received is not how the Church should think. We could not be a whole body in Christ without every member individually.
"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. For the body is not one member, but many."

1 Corinthians 12:27-31 (KJV) Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

The Corinthians seemed to be more focused on the gifts of the spirit rather than remembering they are ALL ONE together in Christ. And the gifts are ALL given for the profit of the whole, so none should esteem some of greater value than other members because all are valuable in the body of Christ. We don't all have the same gifts, but that does not make us of any less importance to God. Paul explains that the most important gift of the Spirit is LOVE. That's the one gift we should all covet.

Chapter 13 - Paul takes great pains to explain why having all the gifts of the Spirit without love, is of little value for the body. If we possess certain gifts lacking love, not only is it unprofitable, but it also shows we are still babes in Christ and lack maturity that is written "when that which is perfect is come." As babes in Christ we lack understanding of all prophecies, tongues and knowledge. We know only in part. But when we become mature in faith and doctrine what we knew in part will vanish. That doesn't mean these gifts of the Spirit will no longer exist. It means that which is in part vanishes because we will no longer have the understanding of a child (babe in Christ), we will have grown up or matured into greater, more perfect knowledge and understanding of these various gifts of the Spirit. Paul defines this as going from being a child into becoming a man.

The best gift to covet is love, because faith, hope, and love are the fruits of the Spirit that every believer possesses from the moment we are born again of His Spirit in us. (Gal 5:22-24)

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (KJV) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

As babes in Christ we are tossed to and fro with every new wind of doctrine that comes along, until we become a mature (perfect) man.

Ephesians 4:13-16 (KJV) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

In the next post I'll comment on chapter 14.

 

[St. SteVen]

Water baptism is only contentious because of erroneous doctrine that teaches we need to be dunked, sprinkled or splashed with water for salvation.

Or perhaps it is contentious because we MAKE it contentious?
If we accept the fact there will be differences in doctrines between churches, then we can have peace about it. IMHO

/

 

[rwb]

Or perhaps it is contentious because we MAKE it contentious?
If we accept the fact there will be differences in doctrines between churches, then we can have peace about it. IMHO

/

Well, it may be true that contentious behavior may subside if we simply accept there are differences concerning biblical doctrine. But is having peace above biblical truths really displaying love for others? I believe the way to peace is to acknowledge there is only one truth and accept that if our doctrine causes the Word of God to appear dependent upon how we feel, or causes contradictions, then it cannot be true biblical doctrine. This too is IMHO.

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, it may be true that contentious behavior may subside if we simply accept there are differences concerning biblical doctrine. But is having peace above biblical truths really displaying love for others? I believe the way to peace is to acknowledge there is only one truth and accept that if our doctrine causes the Word of God to appear dependent upon how we feel, or causes contradictions, then it cannot be true biblical doctrine. This too is IMHO.

I did a series of topics on this question. Links below.
The biggest question is in the last topic below.

Embracing Doctrinal Diversity - Unity in diversity​

The tyranny of doctrinal unity - "Join or die."​

Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

​

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, it may be true that contentious behavior may subside if we simply accept there are differences concerning biblical doctrine. But is having peace above biblical truths really displaying love for others? I believe the way to peace is to acknowledge there is only one truth and accept that if our doctrine causes the Word of God to appear dependent upon how we feel, or causes contradictions, then it cannot be true biblical doctrine. This too is IMHO.

I think we need to be careful with terms like "biblical doctrine", "true biblical doctrine", and "biblical truth".
Two doctrines can be in disagreement and still be biblical. Because doctrines are man-made.
Doctrinal contradictions will always be with us as long as there are differing opinions on WHAT the Bible means.
Who is to say who is wrong or right? Or what is "true", and what is "false"?

It;s easy to identify a religious cult. They meet in the church across the street from your church.
And they feel the same way about you. Where does that get us?

/

 

[rwb]

I think we need to be careful with terms like "biblical doctrine", "true biblical doctrine", and "biblical truth".
Two doctrines can be in disagreement and still be biblical. Because doctrines are man-made.
Doctrinal contradictions will always be with us as long as there are differing opinions on WHAT the Bible means.
Who is to say who is wrong or right? Or what is "true", and what is "false"?

It;s easy to identify a religious cult. They meet in the church across the street from your church.
And they feel the same way about you. Where does that get us?

/

What doctrines are we speaking of that are man-made? Can they be proven from the abundance of Scripture, or are they presented as "what I believe" or "in my opinion"? As I've said a time or two now, if our doctrine does not align with what is written but causes contradiction, our doctrine should be discarded because there are not contradictions in the Word of God. Where I believe the real problem lies is with human pride. Sadly, we have often devoted so much time and energy on what we believe is true or have been taught as truth that we would rather not hear anything that might show we have not considered all that is written. This happens to every student of the Word from time to time. We must be open to correction and this, like our first parents is something we find very difficult to do.

 

[St. SteVen]

What doctrines are we speaking of that are man-made? Can they be proven from the abundance of Scripture, or are they presented as "what I believe" or "in my opinion"? As I've said a time or two now, if our doctrine does not align with what is written but causes contradiction, our doctrine should be discarded because there are not contradictions in the Word of God. Where I believe the real problem lies is with human pride. Sadly, we have often devoted so much time and energy on what we believe is true or have been taught as truth that we would rather not hear anything that might show we have not considered all that is written. This happens to every student of the Word from time to time. We must be open to correction and this, like our first parents is something we find very difficult to do.

Have you read the OP for this topic?

Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

/

 

[rwb]

1Cor 14 -

Have you read the OP for this topic?

Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

/

Only if I could be convinced my doctrinal position is not supported by the Scripture. I've changed my doctrinal positions when shown that what I believed to be true caused contradiction into the Word of God. I don't believe we should change what we believe for unity, but for truth. One example where I had to change what I had been taught was biblical truth, is that we are not eternally secure in Christ. After being convinced by the abundance of Scripture, I could not continue to believe a doctrine that forced contradiction into the Word of God. Unity in the body of Christ is very important and worthy to be sought, but unity at the price of truth comes from deception, where one is either deceived or is the deceiver.