Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3614 | ||
The most natural reading of John 20:21-22 indicates that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles at that time and that the "filling" of Pentecost was something different, which empowered them to be effective in proclaiming the Gospel more powerfully. However, it is a mistake to equate this with any specific gift. It is also a mistake to equate this with current practices involving certain procedures. Please consider the following as merely an attempt at exposition and NOT intended to bash anyone or to question anyone's intentions; while some may be offended by the directness, this is not meant as an attack. The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages (Acts 2:4-11), and there is no mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I have never seen nor heard of modern-day scheduled or choreographed "Holy Spirit baptisms" being accompanied by an actual foreign language (unknown to the speaker) that a bonafide foreign language speaker testified to -- never; yet this is precisely what happened spontaneously at Pentecost. Nor have I ever heard of modern conditions where physical tongues of fire actually came down upon "recipients". It's simply not the same as the event that they claim it to be equal to. Correctly spoken praise in real languages (by non-speakers) can be easily tested by actual speakers -- as at Pentecost and likewise again in Acts 10:44-47;11:15-16 when the Gospel and the Spirit first went out to the Gentiles. Claims of unknown languages are neither verifiable nor (therefore) authoritative, since (by their very nature) they can prove nothing. This is not to say that there is no such separate experience of being "filled" with the Spirit, but Pentecost and claims of modern parallels are completely different. Can this happen? Perhaps (and most likely in a place where the Gospel is first appearing), but it should be expected to happen as a unique and spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit -- not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man. Doubtless someone somewhere may think of 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicating at least a possibility for angelic tongues -- but this is clearly hyperbole in its immediate context, which includes parallel references to people who literally "move mountains" with their faith and-or "know all mysteries and all knowledge" -- which they don't. Paul is using hyperbole to make a point about the priority of love far beyond even greatly exaggerated versions of real gifts. Please look at the context carefully. I'd like to expand more on the idea of the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but I can feel myself ready to ramble too quickly and loosely. Besides, I'm sure others can add some of the same ideas with Scripture references. Another time. |
||||||
2 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 3632 | ||
You are correct in the fact that the disciples already had the Holy Spirit living in them before Pentecost (John 20:22), but they were not baptized with the Holy Spirit. This first occurred at Pentecost, just as Jesus promised (Acts 1:5). This could not have been a one time occurrence with the disciples as the only recipients, as you suggest. Did the disciples go “to the end of the Earth?” (Acts 1:8) The account of tongues at Pentecost is the only time I recall where tongues were actually understood by someone other than God, so this could have been a miracle of hearing, as well as evidence of the Baptism of Holy Spirit as promised. Note: vs6 "everyone HEARD them speak in his own language" Note: vs8 "we HEAR, each in our own language" Note: vs11 "we HEAR them speaking in our own tongues.” The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages? Maybe, maybe not. A mistake to equate this with any specific gift? I don’t think it’s a mistake. Neither does the Word. (Acts11:17) No mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit? Huh, I don’t know about that. (1Cor14:2) 1Cor13:1 “tongues of men and of angels” an exaggeration used for emphasis? I guess you might could read that into this scripture. I have read JM commentary also. Baptism of Holy Spirit to be “spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit” yes -- “not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man?” Certainly not forbidden. (Acts 8:14-15) I will end on this note: This is not meant as an attack on my part, just as you have said it was not an attack on your part. I accept that, PLEASE do the same. You admit that a separate experience of being filled with the Spirit is possible, so I assume you cannot deny with any Biblical bases, only personal experience or observation. There is not much talk on this forum of personal experiences or even personal relationships with Jesus. I assure you, I have both. (Not to imply AT ALL that others do not have). Most of the talk is on theological issues, which will only take someone so far. Acts 15:8 says "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us. Notice the Holy Spirit was not given because of knowledge, but the HEART. I will make this deal with you. I won’t try to prove the Bible with any of my experiences or lack of them, or anybody else’s. My experiences or lack of them do not prove or disprove the Bible. The Bible stands on it’s own. If it does not line up with the Word, throw it out. |
||||||
3 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3949 | ||
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. My job gets busy or slow at unexpected times, and of course that has to come first. While I definitely have certain things that I have strong views on, I'm not particularly interested in debate as much as trying to understand more clearly what the Scriptures say -- changing my views and questioning others' views if I'm uncertain about their accuracy. It's hard to gauge from written correspondence on this kind of forum, but it seems like you're seeking to debate. For example, you said of me, "You admit that a separate experience of being filled with the Spirit is possible, so I assume you cannot deny...." "Admit" would be an incorrect word suggesting debate. I BELIEVE that Christians can (and often do) have such experiences; therefore, when a group claims something to consistently be an example(or the example) of such an experience, it should be tested against the Scriptural accounts and guidelines. I was stating my beliefs, not conceding debated points. That said, I'd like to make some observations about these passages. Acts 2 doesn't mention the "baptism" of the Spirit, and the initial verse quoted (1 Cor 12:13 -- probably when the question was asked) appears to refer to ALL Christians. I would equate this reference with receiving the Spirit (immediately following belief). Being "filled with" the Spirit appears to be different from being "baptized by" the Spirit. In John 20 and Acts 2 (along with Acts 4, etc.) receiving the Spirit and a first experience of "filling" appear to have happened separately (although there are many solid teachers and theologians who would disagree). This does not mean that they never happen together, but they initially happened separately for the disciples; this filling was also repeated (e.g. Acts 4:31) among the same people (and without any indication of supernatural tongues in that particular case). The idea that these (the "tongues" or languages of Acts 2) were somehow angelic tongues and that the listeners also miraculously (magically?) heard them in their own languages seems very far-fetched to me; let me elaborate. In the text, Luke clearly indicates that the Spirit fell upon the disciples; he says nothing about the Spirit falling upon the hearers. In fact, the text indicates they had not even received the Spirit at all after this point, set aside being filled. Peter later tells the hearers to repent and seek forgiveness and THEN RECEIVE the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Luke makes a specific point of identifying the various native languages of the hearers, and stating NOT that they could "understand" them as if in their own languages; rather they "heard" them "in [their] own languages." There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" -- but interpretation is different from hearing in one's own language. The miracle was in the disciples speaking the listeners' languages, NOT in the listeners somehow hearing some unknown language as if they were their own. Paul's explanation in 1 Cor 14:10-14 also describes the use of these gifts; I'm not an expert on languages, but I speak several. When I hear one of those foreing languages, I don't think I'm hearing English. If I'm explaining it to someone who doesn't understand, I "interpret" it; I don't repeat back the English that I heard. In addition, the word 'tongues' also means 'languages' -- which is plural, and the passage I noted from 1 Cor 14 also indicates the use of world languages. It makes logical sense to recognize that Pentecost was an example of the disciples speaking in real foreign languages, which were recognized by native speakers. It doesn't make logical sense for it to be referring to angelic languages. I can see where someone may possibly interpret other references as speaking of such angelic tongues (although I personally disagree with such interpretations), but this is the first I've heard such a suggestion specifically about Pentecost. I don't associate such a concept with any specific Christian group or groups, so my aim is not to challenge any particular group's beliefs that I know of. Have others heard such an interpretation taught? If so, how is it supported? |
||||||
4 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 3970 | ||
Sorry I came across as I was seeking to debate. I was not. Sorry. I was only expressing my beliefs, as you, which I base on scripture, not experience. A few more points to ponder, and I will shut up. If Acts 2 does not mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit, where is Jesus’s promise fulfilled in Act 1:5? 1Cor 14:2 says “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for NO ONE understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries”. I can’t understand how anyone could say tongues could be a known world languages, based on 1Cor 14? I have heard testimonies as such, but I can’t see how anyone could use 1Cor 14 to back it up. As far as the tongues in Acts 2, I said “this COULD have been a miracle of hearing”. Please don’t think I do not believe the disciples could not have spoken in real foreign languages. I was just giving another possibility that would be consistent with other accounts of tongues in scripture. In Jesus Love |
||||||
5 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | melchizedekau | 3974 | ||
brother i sense an air of confusion in your request.there are 4 things that destroy faith fear ,doubt,reason ,and anxiety.God is simple. there are millions of christians all over the Globe who have recieved the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ,and enjoying a victorious walk with Jesus.please pray and ask do you really desire to give the Lord all that you are and desire all that He has for you. Pride will often stop us from recieving from God.if you ask you will get .if you seek you will find if you knock you will be answered.But please, try not to look a gift horse in the mouth as reason will destroy What the Lord has for you.If Acts 2 was a working of miricles in the hearing realm then the WORD would have said so.YIC | ||||||
6 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 4012 | ||
Thanks melchizedekau for your words of concern. Please take note of what I have said earlier in this forum: “I believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised in Acts1. That promise bore witness as being true thru out Acts (2,8,10,11,19). I believe it is still true today and is verified by the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance.” I think that states my position pretty well. I think we might be in the same book, but certainly not on the same page. I think it might help if we could read the previous posts, before we respond with any sort of judgmental comments. Notice I said read the post, not READ INTO the post. When I say “I think” I am stating “my opinion” which does not mean very much. Please don’t think I think you need to believe my opinion, unless the scripture references and the Holy Spirit tell you otherwise. Acts2 : Please re-read my previous post. Sorry if I seemed to be saying something I did not mean. Please believe me, I was only giving another POSSIBLE interpretation, that’s all, not my theology. I can’t even spell theologian, but now look at me, I are one! Just kidding Bro! Anyway, here is my last explanation (I hope) of what I said. Many people claim the tongues in Acts 2 were different from the other examples in scripture, because they were actually understood. ALL I am saying is what I have already said, there is also the POSSIBILITY there could have been a miracle of understanding going on also, because all DID NOT understand (vs13). In Jesus’s Love |
||||||
7 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | melchizedekau | 4040 | ||
hey bless you bro.i was concerned at only the fact that it was a rabbits trail.there is a miracle of understanding.Yes i believe just that. and it is called salvation. The word says the gospel is hid to those that are lost.So as we hear we recieve and believe, we can then understand. YIC. | ||||||