Baptism in the Holy Spirit

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All who are ANOINTED by Jesus with the baptism with the Holy Spirit ...
receive great spiritual power, plus one or more of the 9 spiritual power gifts in 1 Cor 12.

In the NT churches, all who had a 5-fold ministry leadership position (Eph 4:11)
possessed this baptism of anointing, along with one or more of the 9 gifts.

But, Satan and sinful man combined together to do away with all of these things
in the major church organizations, i.e. RCC and EOC.

Welcome to the real world of spiritual Truth ... truly, it is precious and hard to come by!

Kind of reminds me of what is holy and the pearls, which Jesus mentioned.
.

I have just read the following quote from another person in another discussion forum, and the contrast will speak for itself to explain why I post it in answer to your post here ...

Quote, "I find it interesting that in Habakkuk 2:4 the faithful are contrast with the proud. God doesn't contrast the faithful with alcoholics, homosexuals, murderers, pimps, prostitutes, thieves or such sinners but with the proud.

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD" (Prov. 16:5) Pride seeks to justify sin. Pride seeks to point out the sin of others and thus minimize our own sin. When we do think about looking at our own characters to see if we have some sin that needs to be repented of, pride says we need not - we dare not - open that door. Pride looks up to some and down on others. Pride is motivated by selfishness and SELF is the wickedest most evil villain we can worship. It is the most common idol set up and worshiped by sinful humanity.

Our other option is to worship God. But what does that mean? It means we side with God against ourselves. I have often meditated on that thought. "Side with God against myself" Self says do this or do that. God law says thou shalt not do this or do that. To side with God is to obey God. To side with self is let the heart lead me to do whatever it desires. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jere. 17:9) So my choice is to submit to my heart or submit to the Word of God.

So how can I submit to the Word of God? Can a black man change the color of his skin or a leopard change is spots? The just shall live by faith." Quote ends.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The doctrine of the Baptism in the Spirit is like putty in the hands of many, as they shape it any way they want to mean anything they like.

1. It is predictive in Matthew 3:11-Acts 1:5
2. It is restrictive to water baptized believers - Mt. 3:11
3. It is specific
a. The administrator is Christ not the Spirit
b. The mode is immersion - the whole house was filled wherein they sat
c. The element is the Holy Spirit
d. The subject is water baptized church members
4. It is divinely confirmed
a. With SOUND - "a mighty rushing wind"
b. With "tongues of fire" sitting upon each
5. It is Historically fulfilled - occurred only one other time - Acts 10-11:17
6. It is the normal Divine confirmation of every New House of God
a. The first Tabernacle - Ex. 40:35-37
b. The first Temple - 2 Chron. 7:1-3
c. The first Church - Acts 1:15-2:3
7. It is non-repetative - Acts 11:15-17 - "at the beginning" - Peter would not baptize Gentiles without this divine confirmation they were to be received into the new Spirit baptized house of God.


It has nothing to do with PERSONAL salvation or service but with PUBLIC identification of God's ordained institutuion - the house of God.

Annointing has to do with empowering both in the Old and New Testament and nothing to do with the Baptism in the Spirit. To be filled is to be annointed with power and we must be filled MANY TIMES repetitively (Eph. 5:18). It is not regeneration as regeneration is as old as the book of Job and is the only solution for spiritually dead sinners - spiritual death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION while spiritual life is SPIRITUAL UNION with God = regeneration/circumcision of the heart.

Finally, I realize that the Pentecostals will not receive this or any other truth that contradicts their choas of confusion.

What a coxcomb concoction of an alternative!

 

[Yeshua1]

What a coxcomb concoction of an alternative!

At least it is trying to reason from the scriptures correctly, something Charasmatic chaos could learn to heed!

 

[evangelist-7]

I have just read the following quote from another person in another discussion forum,
and the contrast will speak for itself to explain why I post it in answer to your post here ...

What does this have to do with the OP?

But, I do sympathize with you (and the others here) who have not experienced
the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial confirmation of speaking in tongues.

Instead of proudly fighting against God ...
why not get on your knees and ask for the Truth, once and for all?

You can expect to hear the Truth, if not receive this baptism.
Jesus just gives this baptism to some.
.

 

[Yeshua1]

What does this have to do with the OP?

But, I do sympathize with you (and the others here) who have not experienced
the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial confirmation of speaking in tongues.

Instead of proudly fighting against God ...
why not get on your knees and ask for the Truth, once and for all?

You can expect to hear the Truth, if not receive this baptism.
Jesus just gives this baptism to some.
.

ALL of us partook of the SAME Spirit, ALL of us have ALL spiritual blessings in Christ, ALL have received gift to use for glory of God, so where is this some again?

 

[The Biblicist]

The doctrine of the Baptism in the Spirit is like putty in the hands of many, as they shape it any way they want to mean anything they like.

1. It is predictive in Matthew 3:11-Acts 1:5
2. It is restrictive to water baptized believers - Mt. 3:11
3. It is specific
a. The administrator is Christ not the Spirit
b. The mode is immersion - the whole house was filled wherein they sat
c. The element is the Holy Spirit
d. The subject is water baptized church members
4. It is divinely confirmed
a. With SOUND - "a mighty rushing wind"
b. With "tongues of fire" sitting upon each
5. It is Historically fulfilled - occurred only one other time - Acts 10-11:17
6. It is the normal Divine confirmation of every New House of God
a. The first Tabernacle - Ex. 40:35-37
b. The first Temple - 2 Chron. 7:1-3
c. The first Church - Acts 1:15-2:3
7. It is non-repetative - Acts 11:15-17 - "at the beginning" - Peter would not baptize Gentiles without this divine confirmation they were to be received into the new Spirit baptized house of God.


It has nothing to do with PERSONAL salvation or service but with PUBLIC identification of God's ordained institutuion - the house of God.

Annointing has to do with empowering both in the Old and New Testament and nothing to do with the Baptism in the Spirit. To be filled is to be annointed with power and we must be filled MANY TIMES repetitively (Eph. 5:18). It is not regeneration as regeneration is as old as the book of Job and is the only solution for spiritually dead sinners - spiritual death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION while spiritual life is SPIRITUAL UNION with God = regeneration/circumcision of the heart.

Finally, I realize that the Pentecostals will not receive this or any other truth that contradicts their choas of confusion.

Let's take it step by step. We will consider the first four. Can anyone successfully deny that it is totally "predictive" between Matthew 1:1 and Acts 1:5? Every single solitary reference to it between Matthew 1:1 and Acts 1:5 is a predictive future fulfillment.

Can anyone successfully deny that its totally restricted in every predictive account to water baptized believers? In every single text, it is water baptized believers being addressed.

Can anyone successfully deny the specifics:

1. John says Christ is the administrator of this baptism - "He shall baptize you"
2. John says it is a baptism - "He shall baptize" - they were all seated in a house and the house was filled with the Spirit - they were immersed in the Spirit.
3. John says it is baptized believers who are the candidates - "I baptize YOU with water but He shall baptize YOU" - same "YOU" - the ones previously water baptized by John.
4. John says the element into which they are baptized is the Spirit - "he shall baptize you IN THE SPIRIT."

Can anyone successfully deny it was accompanied with divine manifestations:

"tongues of fire"
"sound of a mighty rushing wind"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What does this have to do with the OP?

But, I do sympathize with you (and the others here) who have not experienced
the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial confirmation of speaking in tongues.

Instead of proudly fighting against God ...
why not get on your knees and ask for the Truth, once and for all?

You can expect to hear the Truth, if not receive this baptism.
Jesus just gives this baptism to some.
.

All lies and error, spiritual arrogance and elitism. All believers have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and so no believer has to seek it. The tongues of which you speak are not the tongues of the New Testament.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

In 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle Paul used present tense when speaking of the gifts of the Spirit. Not past tense, nor future. The gifts were given for a specific time period, that period being the first century,

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's take it step by step. We will consider the first four. Can anyone successfully deny that it is totally "predictive" between Matthew 1:1 and Acts 1:5? Every single solitary reference to it between Matthew 1:1 and Acts 1:5 is a predictive future fulfillment.

Can anyone successfully deny that its totally restricted in every predictive account to water baptized believers? In every single text, it is water baptized believers being addressed.

Can anyone successfully deny the specifics:

1. John says Christ is the administrator of this baptism - "He shall baptize you"
2. John says it is a baptism - "He shall baptize" - they were all seated in a house and the house was filled with the Spirit - they were immersed in the Spirit.
3. John says it is baptized believers who are the candidates - "I baptize YOU with water but He shall baptize YOU" - same "YOU" - the ones previously water baptized by John.
4. John says the element into which they are baptized is the Spirit - "he shall baptize you IN THE SPIRIT."

Can anyone successfully deny it was accompanied with divine manifestations:

"tongues of fire"
"sound of a mighty rushing wind"

I see that no one has attempted to deny the first four statements I presented are not Biblical based facts.

Let's look at the last three:

5. It is Historically fulfilled - occurred only one other time - Acts 10-11:17

There can be no doubt it had a fulfillment in Acts 2:1-3 as every reference prior to Acts 2:1-3 is predictive only. Hence, it cannot be denied it was historically fulfilled in Acts 2:1-3. It cannot be denied it was repeated in Acts 10 as Peter explicitly states it was (Acts 11:15-17).

The nearest reference point Peter could give for what happened in Acts 10 was "AT the beginning" or Acts 2:1-3.

However, if the Pentecostal (second work of grace) or Protestant interpretation insertion into invisible church body/regeneration) was true he should have stated "SINCE the beginning" as thousands had been saved between Acts 2:1-3 and Acts 10. If it was a PERSONAL application then it should have been the NORMAL occurrence "SINCE the beginning" but Peter's nearest reference point was "AT the beginning."

Furthermore, there is not a single solitary reference to it after Acts 11:15-17 - none - zilch!

If this is baptism is necessary for INDIVIDUAL salvation or progressive sanctification we should be reading about it repetitively throughout the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, etc. - but ZILCH.

Furthermore, Ephesians 4:5 says there is but "ONE baptism" not TWO thus proving it was HISTORICALLY COMPLETED. The ONLY baptism that continues to the end of the age is the baptism in the Great Commission and that is the kind that one human being "YE" can administer to another human being "THEM" (Mt. 28:19-20). Paul says there is now but "ONE" baptism and yet Pentecostals and Protestants repudiate Paul and say there is at minimum "TWO." I will beleive Paul.

Anointing by the Spirit is something administered by the Spirit not Christ and Christ is the administrator of baptism in the Spirit. Anointing by the Spirit is simply being "filled" not "baptized."

The baptism in the Spirit is an INSTITUTIONAL event not an INDIVIDUAL event.

This institution is "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) composed of ONLY PLURAL water baptized believers just as John promised would be the subjects of this batpism in the Spirit - "he will baptize YOU" or the "YOU" John claimed to baptize in water.




6. It is the normal Divine confirmation of every New House of God
a. The first Tabernacle - Ex. 40:35-37
b. The first Temple - 2 Chron. 7:1-3
c. The first Church - Acts 1:15-2:3


The above facts cannot be successfully disputed as they are a matter of record.

The Pentecostal and Protestant interpretation fail to distinguish the local congregation as "the temple" of the Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16) composed of a PLURAL "you" versus the individual body of the believer as "a" temple of the Spirit as a SINGULAR "you" (1 Cor. 6:17).

The "house of God" as an INSTITUTION is a Divinely formed body through the organic work of the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) where baptized believers are brought into a "church" relationship with Christ according to Matthew 28:20.



7. It is non-repetative - Acts 11:15-17 - "at the beginning" - Peter would not baptize Gentiles without this divine confirmation they were to be received into the new Spirit baptized house of God.

The church institution is given the reproductive ability to reproduce after its own kind through the implementation of the Great Commission which is a natural cyclical commission - go - baptize - teach to observe all things - which demands them to - go - baptized - etc.

Thus "the faith" was "ONCE" delivered for all time never needing to be "redelivered." The promise of Christ assures this reproductive cycle will continue "day in and day out until the end of the age."

 

[awaken]

I see that no one has attempted to deny the first four statements I presented are not Biblical based facts.

Let's look at the last three:

5. It is Historically fulfilled - occurred only one other time - Acts 10-11:17

There can be no doubt it had a fulfillment in Acts 2:1-3 as every reference prior to Acts 2:1-3 is predictive only. Hence, it cannot be denied it was historically fulfilled in Acts 2:1-3. It cannot be denied it was repeated in Acts 10 as Peter explicitly states it was (Acts 11:15-17).

The nearest reference point Peter could give for what happened in Acts 10 was "AT the beginning" or Acts 2:1-3.

However, if the Pentecostal (second work of grace) or Protestant interpretation insertion into invisible church body/regeneration) was true he should have stated "SINCE the beginning" as thousands had been saved between Acts 2:1-3 and Acts 10. If it was a PERSONAL application then it should have been the NORMAL occurrence "SINCE the beginning" but Peter's nearest reference point was "AT the beginning."

Furthermore, there is not a single solitary reference to it after Acts 11:15-17 - none - zilch!

If this is baptism is necessary for INDIVIDUAL salvation or progressive sanctification we should be reading about it repetitively throughout the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, etc. - but ZILCH.

Furthermore, Ephesians 4:5 says there is but "ONE baptism" not TWO thus proving it was HISTORICALLY COMPLETED. The ONLY baptism that continues to the end of the age is the baptism in the Great Commission and that is the kind that one human being "YE" can administer to another human being "THEM" (Mt. 28:19-20). Paul says there is now but "ONE" baptism and yet Pentecostals and Protestants repudiate Paul and say there is at minimum "TWO." I will beleive Paul.

Anointing by the Spirit is something administered by the Spirit not Christ and Christ is the administrator of baptism in the Spirit. Anointing by the Spirit is simply being "filled" not "baptized."

The baptism in the Spirit is an INSTITUTIONAL event not an INDIVIDUAL event.

This institution is "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) composed of ONLY PLURAL water baptized believers just as John promised would be the subjects of this batpism in the Spirit - "he will baptize YOU" or the "YOU" John claimed to baptize in water.




6. It is the normal Divine confirmation of every New House of God
a. The first Tabernacle - Ex. 40:35-37
b. The first Temple - 2 Chron. 7:1-3
c. The first Church - Acts 1:15-2:3


The above facts cannot be successfully disputed as they are a matter of record.

The Pentecostal and Protestant interpretation fail to distinguish the local congregation as "the temple" of the Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16) composed of a PLURAL "you" versus the individual body of the believer as "a" temple of the Spirit as a SINGULAR "you" (1 Cor. 6:17).

The "house of God" as an INSTITUTION is a Divinely formed body through the organic work of the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) where baptized believers are brought into a "church" relationship with Christ according to Matthew 28:20.



7. It is non-repetative - Acts 11:15-17 - "at the beginning" - Peter would not baptize Gentiles without this divine confirmation they were to be received into the new Spirit baptized house of God.

The church institution is given the reproductive ability to reproduce after its own kind through the implementation of the Great Commission which is a natural cyclical commission - go - baptize - teach to observe all things - which demands them to - go - baptized - etc.

Thus "the faith" was "ONCE" delivered for all time never needing to be "redelivered." The promise of Christ assures this reproductive cycle will continue "day in and day out until the end of the age."

THis has made some sense to me except I have a problem with this and Acts 8 and 19 can you explain those two?

"But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ... When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:12-17)

It seems to me the water baptism took place first here! I do not see the water baptism repeated after they received the Holy Spirit.

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7)

They were baptized just like the apostles in water at John's baptism. I do not see where the apostles were rebaptized in water after they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

 

[evangelist-7]

Awaken,

Thou art bringin' up olde stuff that has been dealt with these guys beefor.
Thou art wastin' your time.
But, have a nice day while you're wastin' it.
.

 

[The Biblicist]

THis has made some sense to me except I have a problem with this and Acts 8 and 19 can you explain those two?

"But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ... When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:12-17)

Water baptism is obviously administered to the Samaritans just as it is to the Eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:35-37).

In regard to receiving the Spirit through the laying on of the Apostles hands, that refers to the manifest gifts not the Person of the Spirit just as it does in Acts 19:6-7. Notice the definite article is missing in the Greek text "the" before "Holy Spirit." This again demonstrates the Person of the Spirit is not intended but rather his manifest gifts. Take note of Simon's request that he too can have power to lay his hands on people and impart such manifest gifts. He would not ask for that power if there were no visible manifestations being seen.

It seems to me the water baptism took place first here! I do not see the water baptism repeated after they received the Holy Spirit.

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7)

They were baptized just like the apostles in water at John's baptism. I do not see where the apostles were rebaptized in water after they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

John had long been dead before these disciples ever came along. They did not say that John baptized them but only they believed they had the baptism of John. They submitted to an administrator who claimed to have authority to administer John's baptism (Apollos). Neither Apollos or these disciples knew that "Jesus" was the Messiah. However, after the Spirit of God came upon Jesus in the form of a "dove" he proclaimed that "Jesus" was the Messiah. Apollos had probably been baptized by John prior to the revelation to John that "Jesus" was the Messiah. He had believed in the Old Testament or pre-Jesus gospel spelled out in Acts 10:43. Apollos needed further instruction that "Jesus" was the Messiah and that the New Testament church through its ordained leaders (Pastor's, Deacons, Missionaries, Apostles)was the SPIRIT BAPTIZED successor to administering the baptism of John.

 

[awaken]

Water baptism is obviously administered to the Samaritans just as it is to the Eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:35-37).

In regard to receiving the Spirit through the laying on of the Apostles hands, that refers to the manifest gifts not the Person of the Spirit just as it does in Acts 19:6-7. Notice the definite article is missing in the Greek text "the" before "Holy Spirit." This again demonstrates the Person of the Spirit is not intended but rather his manifest gifts. Take note of Simon's request that he too can have power to lay his hands on people and impart such manifest gifts. He would not ask for that power if there were no visible manifestations being seen.

I agree with this! So when they believed and were baptized they received the indwelling Holy Spirit, right?
Then when the Apostles laid hands on them they received the NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT but the power/manifestations of the Holy Spirit, right?

John had long been dead before these disciples ever came along. They did not say that John baptized them but only they believed they had the baptism of John. They submitted to an administrator who claimed to have authority to administer John's baptism (Apollos). Neither Apollos or these disciples knew that "Jesus" was the Messiah. However, after the Spirit of God came upon Jesus in the form of a "dove" he proclaimed that "Jesus" was the Messiah. Apollos had probably been baptized by John prior to the revelation to John that "Jesus" was the Messiah. He had believed in the Old Testament or pre-Jesus gospel spelled out in Acts 10:43. Apollos needed further instruction that "Jesus" was the Messiah and that the New Testament church through its ordained leaders (Pastor's, Deacons, Missionaries, Apostles)was the SPIRIT BAPTIZED successor to administering the baptism of John.

This confused me a little...
Even if what you posted is true, they were still baptized in the Lord Jesus by Paul. THEN he laid hands on them to recieve the Holy Ghost. The baptism came first, right?

Also you did not address the fact that the disciples were only baptized by John also! Nowhere in scriptures does it say they were re baptized before the Day of Pentecost. I see water baptism happening before they recieve Holy Spirit.

I would like to discuss the difference in "The Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit" futher...because I have had trouble understanding that...but that might be another thread!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with this! So when they believed and were baptized they received the indwelling Holy Spirit, right?
Then when the Apostles laid hands on them they received the NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT but the power/manifestations of the Holy Spirit, right?







This confused me a little...
Even if what you posted is true, they were still baptized in the Lord Jesus by Paul. THEN he laid hands on them to recieve the Holy Ghost. The baptism came first, right?

Also you did not address the fact that the disciples were only baptized by John also! Nowhere in scriptures does it say they were re baptized before the Day of Pentecost. I see water baptism happening before they recieve Holy Spirit.

I would like to discuss the difference in "The Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit" futher...because I have had trouble understanding that...but that might be another thread!

Again, the big problem that you keep fail to see is that Acts recorded the church in a transistionary phase, so MUST get tot the Epsitles to learn what would be seen as doctrines for the church going forward!

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with this! So when they believed and were baptized they received the indwelling Holy Spirit, right?
Then when the Apostles laid hands on them they received the NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT but the power/manifestations of the Holy Spirit, right?

They received the indwelling Spirit at the point of faith PRIOR to water baptism.

This confused me a little...
Even if what you posted is true, they were still baptized in the Lord Jesus by Paul. THEN he laid hands on them to recieve the Holy Ghost. The baptism came first, right?

The indwelling Spirit preceded Water baptism, but water baptism preceded receiving spiritual gifts as noted in the order between verses 6-7.

Also you did not address the fact that the disciples were only baptized by John also! Nowhere in scriptures does it say they were re baptized before the Day of Pentecost. I see water baptism happening before they recieve Holy Spirit.

Their baptism was invalid because their administrator had no authority from heaven to administer the baptism of John. Apollos was corrected on two points in Acts 18. (1) Jesus is the Christ; (2) the church is the proper adminstrator of the ordinances. Note his response to these two corrections. He then preached that "Jesus" was the Christ and he worked through New Testament churches.

Those in Acts 19 were ignorant of the very same two points. Their baptism is the product of an unqualified administrator who did not know "Jesus" was the Christ (v. 5) and who was without authority to administer baptism - they simply got wet and received scriptural baptism from a scriptural church sent, church authorized (Acts 13:1-4) administrator (v. 5).

I would like to discuss the difference in "The Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit" futher...because I have had trouble understanding that...but that might be another thread!

Look at a interlinear Greek/English New Testament. Also E.W. Bullinger has a book devoted to this study entitled "The Giver and His Gifts"(Kregel Publications).

 

[awaken]

Again, the big problem that you keep fail to see is that Acts recorded the church in a transistionary phase, so MUST get tot the Epsitles to learn what would be seen as doctrines for the church going forward!

What you fail to understand is that what you stated is not found in scriptures!

 

[awaken]

They received the indwelling Spirit at the point of faith PRIOR to water baptism.

Ok...we agree on this point!

The indwelling Spirit preceded Water baptism, but water baptism preceded receiving spiritual gifts as noted in the order between verses 6-7.

I agree with this!

Their baptism was invalid because their administrator had no authority from heaven to administer the baptism of John. Apollos was corrected on two points in Acts 18. (1) Jesus is the Christ; (2) the church is the proper adminstrator of the ordinances. Note his response to these two corrections. He then preached that "Jesus" was the Christ and he worked through New Testament churches.

Those in Acts 19 were ignorant of the very same two points. Their baptism is the product of an unqualified administrator who did not know "Jesus" was the Christ (v. 5) and who was without authority to administer baptism - they simply got wet and received scriptural baptism from a scriptural church sent, church authorized (Acts 13:1-4) administrator (v. 5).

Ok...but they still received the gifts after salvation/water baptism, right?

Look at a interlinear Greek/English New Testament. Also E.W. Bullinger has a book devoted to this study entitled "The Giver and His Gifts"(Kregel Publications).

Ok, thanks!

 

[Yeshua1]

What you fail to understand is that what you stated is not found in scriptures!

the sign gifts ceased when the offices of prophets/Apostles ceased, THAT is in the bible, and that Acts records a transitional phase is attested to by the church historically viewing it that way until charasmatic chaos hit 1905!

 

[awaken]

the sign gifts ceased when the offices of prophets/Apostles ceased, THAT is in the bible, and that Acts records a transitional phase is attested to by the church historically viewing it that way until charasmatic chaos hit 1905!

Scripture please!

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture please!

No MORE additional revealtions from God since John died!

NT prophet spoke forth for the Lord, inspired to do such, no more ongoing revelations, so no more prophetic office!
Same for Apostles, as none have qualified for that office since john died either!