SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
From this record it is quite clear that during the first decade Peter and the church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit and that “speaking with tongues” was the immediate consequence or confirmation of this baptism.


du Plessis' emphasis on seeking the Baptizer is good but although I speak with tongues I could not agree with this quoted conclusion.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/24 5:13Profile
rowdy2
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 528
Southern USA

 Re: Thanks

Great post.
Thanks Eddie


_________________
Eddie

 2007/1/24 6:27Profile









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
From this record it is quite clear that during the first decade Peter and the church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit and that “speaking with tongues” was the immediate consequence or confirmation of this baptism.


du Plessis' emphasis on seeking the Baptizer is good but although I speak with tongues I could not agree with this quoted conclusion.



How then did they know when one was?

Acts 19:1-6 (KJV)
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, [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. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [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. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

How did both Paul and the disciples of John were, to His/their satisfaction?

Nothing about this seemed by a surprise or seen as something out of the ordinary; of what was to be expected.

Orm

 2007/1/24 13:12
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
How then did they know when one was?


The modern, from the early 1900's, view came from Topeka Bible College*. They asked the question 'what is the indisputable proof of the baptism in the Spirit?' and on a mathematical calculation that of 5 New Testament accounts (60% spoke in tongues when baptised in the Spirit{Pentecost Acts 2, Caesaea Acts 10, Ephesus Acts 19}, and additional 20% did so at some period which may or may not have been when they were baptized in the Spirit {Paul 1Cor 14:18}, and the remaining 20% experienced some observable phenomena {Samaria Acts 8:17-18}) concluded that the most consistent expression of the baptism in the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Their question, of course, begs another question. "[u]Is there[/u] an indisputable proof of the baptism in the Spirit?" Is the Acts intended to be used as 'proof texts' for such a question?

*at Charles Fox Parham's Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas in 1901. Parham, a minister of Methodist background, formulated the doctrine that tongues was the "Bible evidence" of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/24 15:02Profile









 Re: What is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

philologos explained

Quote:
They asked the question 'what is the indisputable proof of the baptism in the Spirit?' and on a mathematical calculation that of 5 New Testament accounts (60% spoke in tongues when baptised in the Spirit{Pentecost Acts 2, Caesaea Acts 10, Ephesus Acts 19}, and additional 20% did so at some period which may or may not have been when they were baptized in the Spirit {Paul 1Cor 14:18}, and the remaining 20% experienced some observable phenomena {Samaria Acts 8:17-18}) the most consistent expression of the baptism in the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

W O W ! ! !

This has got to be one of the most illuminating answers to a question I have ever heard - not for it's stunning spiritual truth, but for its pragmatism....... and the amount of wheel-wobble such a very reasonable question has provoked within the 'Christian' community.


I've just had a thought.... and it is only a thought.... which is: I wonder if speaking in tongues as a first sign of baptism in the Spirit is more common amongst those who have been delivered, by their new faith in Christ, from certain namable bondages such as [u]the Law[/u], drunkenness, drug-taking ([u]in association with occult practices[/u], perhaps), debate (futile mental agility and arguments)......... there may be more.

Also, maybe some believers would begin speaking in tongues later in their Christian life, but are given other gifts first. I don't think we can chide God when His choice of initial giftings does not match up with someone else's quota. That brings to mind what Jesus said to Peter in John 21:22 If I will that ....... what is that to thee? follow thou me.

 2007/1/29 4:56









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
How then did they know when one was?


The modern, from the early 1900's, view came from Topeka Bible College*. They asked the question 'what is the indisputable proof of the baptism in the Spirit?' and on a mathematical calculation that of 5 New Testament accounts (60% spoke in tongues when baptised in the Spirit{Pentecost Acts 2, Caesaea Acts 10, Ephesus Acts 19}, and additional 20% did so at some period which may or may not have been when they were baptized in the Spirit {Paul 1Cor 14:18}, and the remaining 20% experienced some observable phenomena {Samaria Acts 8:17-18}) concluded that the most consistent expression of the baptism in the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Their question, of course, begs another question. "[u]Is there[/u] an indisputable proof of the baptism in the Spirit?" Is the Acts intended to be used as 'proof texts' for such a question?

*at Charles Fox Parham's Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas in 1901. Parham, a minister of Methodist background, formulated the doctrine that tongues was the "Bible evidence" of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.



In thinking more about this I believe the gifts of the Spirit are to produce fruit. Fruit we are compelled to produce that we be known of the Father. On the hand, while Gifts are elective, the question is can we produce the Fruit of the Spirit without the Gifts of the Spirit to help us? How then do you suppose we can know we are blessed of the Holy Spirit baptism?

 2007/1/30 18:54









 Re:

Greetings,

I haven't read any of the other posts, but going along with the topic I thought I would post an article for all to read that I believe would be greatly edifying. It is John G. Lake's testimony of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Read it here: http://www.revivalarmy.com/BaptismofFire.htm

 2007/1/31 0:14
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

here is a post from another thread, when people say talking in tongues is "the" evidence of being filled or something similar to statements like that, i dont know if this list is absolutely true or not but it is interesting

(from the thread " talking in tongues? " )

To answer your question about those who were baptized by the Holy Spirit that did not speak in tongues here are names:

John Wesley

Charles Finney

D L Moody

R A Torrey

J Wilbur Chapman

Evan Roberts

A B Earle

A T Pierson

Duncan Campbell

Leonard Ravehnill

John R Rice

J Edwin Orr

These never had a documented experience but obviously were obviously filled with the Spirit of God:

Billy Sunday

Charles Spurgeon


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/1/31 4:36Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
In thinking more about this I believe the gifts of the Spirit are to produce fruit. Fruit we are compelled to produce that we be known of the Father. On the hand, while Gifts are elective, the question is can we produce the Fruit of the Spirit without the Gifts of the Spirit to help us? How then do you suppose we can know we are blessed of the Holy Spirit baptism?


I think it is helpful to distinguish between gifts and fruit. Of course, the Spirit is the author of both but the gifts that hang on my Christmas tree are not the same as the fruit that grows on my plum tree. The gifts may reveal much about the giver but nothing about the nature of the tree. The fruit, on the other hand, reveal unmistakably the nature of the tree.

It is not in the nature of a gift to 'prove' anything about the nature of the recipient (this is why I cannot regard 'tongues' as 'proof'), but by their fruits you will know them.

Gifts, I think, are timed expressions of God's love and power. They come[1] and according to 1 Cor 13, they will 'pass away'. Fruit is an abiding feature of the nature of the one bearing the fruit; love abides.

[1][color=0000ff]“God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”(Heb 2:4 NKJV)[/color] The word here for 'gifts' is not charimata but "[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=3311&page=1&flag_full=1]merismos[/url]" - distributions. Gifts are distributed, fruit grows organically. The 'distributor' may distribute 'gifts' unevenly, but fruit is required of every tree.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/31 5:45Profile









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
In thinking more about this I believe the gifts of the Spirit are to produce fruit. Fruit we are compelled to produce that we be known of the Father. On the hand, while Gifts are elective, the question is can we produce the Fruit of the Spirit without the Gifts of the Spirit to help us? How then do you suppose we can know we are blessed of the Holy Spirit baptism?


I think it is helpful to distinguish between gifts and fruit. Of course, the Spirit is the author of both but the gifts that hang on my Christmas tree are not the same as the fruit that grows on my plum tree. The gifts may reveal much about the giver but nothing about the nature of the tree. The fruit, on the other hand, reveal unmistakably the nature of the tree.



Indeed, the fig tree Jesus cursed comes quickly to mind....and the reason He cursed it.

Quote:
It is not in the nature of a gift to 'prove' anything about the nature of the recipient (this is why I cannot regard 'tongues' as 'proof'), but by their fruits you will know them.



The fig tree sure looked good, didn't it?

Quote:
Gifts, I think, are timed expressions of God's love and power. They come[1] and according to 1 Cor 13, they will 'pass away'. Fruit is an abiding feature of the nature of the one bearing the fruit; love abides.



Yes. However, the danger for us is they must accurately be discerned, not followed after, but discerned, because they will be for our edification until we see Him face to face.

Quote:
[1][color=0000ff]“God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”(Heb 2:4 NKJV)[/color] The word here for 'gifts' is not charimata but "[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=3311&page=1&flag_full=1]merismos[/url]" - distributions. Gifts are distributed, fruit grows organically. The 'distributor' may distribute 'gifts' unevenly, but fruit is required of every tree.



Indeed, that is so. I have been in the Pentecostal "world" for 60 yrs of my almost 70. I know what I have found to be true in/for my life that sustains me. What is the way to discernment, in your estimation/experience?

Orm

 2007/1/31 7:17





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy