Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one [Holy] Spirit we were all baptized into one body, [spiritually transformed--united together] whether Jews or Greeks (Gentiles), slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit [since the same Holy Spirit fills each life]. [Rom 3:22; Gal 3:28] |
Subject: Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? |
Bible Note: 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? |