Is anyone interested in "the baptism with the Holy Spirit"?

You are the expert - tell us.

 

yes thanks - i knew that - its like a cup submersed in water.
I am in the water, the water is in me.

 

No tongues when I was filled...only a very strong clarity, knowing I am loved, and knowing Him, spirit to Spirit ( Romans 8:16 ).

I felt very bold, very calm, very peaceful and very joyful.

 

I do not.
I happen to believe that Scripture states only one baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that is what is often referred to as "POC", or point of conversion...when one first believes the Gospel ( Ephesians 1:13 ).

Each subsequent moving of the Holy Spirit is being filled with Him...not another "baptism".

 

Here's an extensive study of the matter:

https://faithsaves.net/wp-content/u...ted-Historical-EventCorrectUpdatedVersion.pdf

 

Though it is extensive, scholarly and closer to the truth, I disagree.

they do not accept the teaching of the universal church and therefore are in serious error IMO.

"It is not a universal and invisible church, because no such entity is found in the New Testament" (page 18).
"The major metaphors for the church also demonstrate that the idea of a universal, invisible church is false" (page19).

The scripture they stumble upon is:

1 Corinthians 12:13 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.

 

I hearing from the Op and other recent posts on these subjects the proselytizing of 2 salvations, (that more is needed) which he claims there is great interest in.

From the same poster I hear that faith is not enough and that works must follow. Perhaps he speaks of 2 kingdoms? The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven? One must hold on to reach the second salvation of the Kingdom?

Hmm, but I smell a backload of a second type kingdom salvation with works. - its been a while but familiarity with hearing such doctrines is rushing in as well as why I have objected to them.

Perhaps the OPer would like to explain to "me" if he sees that there is a distinction between eternal salvation and salvation of the soul? Because, I suspect he believes something else is required, besides faith, not for eternal salvation no ("when one is "initially" saved and receives everything"), but to stand before Christ blameless on that day one is going to have to prove themselves, eh? Am I getting close?

What do you say Samuel?

 

All true believers are born again including those in the Old Testament. The Baptism is the New Birth expanded through repentance at a New Covenant level into the fullness of the Spirit. The Gifts of the Spirit in Acts are now replaced by the completed canon of scripture.

 

False. The Holy Scripture refers to the "baptism of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 3:11-12 with not recieving the baptism of fire, verse 12 ". . . he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." And the baptism of the Holy Spirit is synomymous with receiving the Holy Spirit, Acts of the Apostles 11:15-17 referring to the event of Acts of the Apostles 10:44-45. See also John 7:39 with John 16:7.

 

That verse is explained starting on p. 18.

 

The conclusion is wrong and promotes ERROR.

The hermeneutic of the passage is obtained by simply reading the verse.

 

This is only an assertion, though. You have failed to deal with the arguments themselves.

 

repeat - the arguments are error - read the verse:


1 Corinthians 12:13 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.

How much simpler can it be?
20 or 30 pages of pedantic scholarship can't change it now or forever.

 

Pp. 18-41 deal entirely with this verse. I don't know whether you've actually read it, for you have not dealt with a single point raised in the paper. It's assertion after assertion. For obvious reasons I won't go over all the arguments.

I ask you to look at all the passages Ross brings up and read them as he would. When you consider things from this alternate angle, you might see why he interprets things as he does.

 

Yes I read the pages and while there is a lot of information there is nothing new or substantive.
e.g.
"The body of Christ, referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13, is the particular, local assembly. It is not a universal and invisible church, because no such entity is found in the New Testament"

1 Corinthians 12:13 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.

I beg the differ the entity is found here:
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

MY CHURCH not MY CHURCHES...

An unacceptable practice of those who want to focus only upon the local churches is to call AND ADD TO the title of "universal church" - the "Invisible church" - WHICH I DO NOT.

Those who use that label mean the "unseen church" - those of other local churches who we do not know as well as the myriads in heaven who have gone on before us.

this argument (it quickly evolves from as debate) happens every few months here and because it almost always ends in ad hominems flying to and fro I do not remain too long in the verbal bombs and missiles once the war begins so I may bow out SOON.

you can scan the archives and find the sophomoric arguments and the war of words.

Don't get me wrong , I love a good spirited debate, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is better in the venue of my school days where the debate was a tool of hermeneutics to learn and not a didactic of insult.

There seems a few subjects here at the BB which trips the war klaxons such as Calvin vs. Arius or the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ.

I am settled in with my belief of BOTH the Universal Church and the great importance of the Local Churches in the NT.

 

Which is understood to contradict 1 Corithians 12:30. ". . .do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? . . ." The answer being, no. ". . . μη παντες γλωσσαις λαλουσι; μη παντες διερμηνευουσι . . . . "

 

". . . with unquenchable fire. . . ." Matthew 3:12; ". . . he will burn with fire unquenchable. . . ." Luke 3:17. ". . . that never shall be quenched. . . ." -- Mark 9:43. That immersion being the lake of fire, Revelation 20:15.