. . . Baptism of the Holy Spirit . . . .

[37818]

There are a number of views. Two main views.
1. When one recieves Christ. (My understanding.)
2. As a special indowment of power for Christian sevice. (Dr John R Rice and other
great preachers of the gospel.)

What the two views have in common? There is one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and many fillings.

I am of the point of view that having a later more powerful filling of the Holy Spirit has lead to the second main view.

 

[Van]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Baptism by the Holy Spirit?
Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

Indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit?

Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

 

[37818]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Baptism by the Holy Spirit?
Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

Indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit?

Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

Technically "immersion in [the] Holy Spirit."

 

[John of Japan]

There are a number of views. Two main views.
1. When one recieves Christ. (My understanding.)
2. As a special indowment of power for Christian sevice. (Dr John R Rice and other
great preachers of the gospel.)

What the two views have in common? There is one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and many fillings.

I am of the point of view that having a later more powerful filling of the Holy Spirit has lead to the second main view.

The first view is basically a dispensational view as I understand it, though other theologies also accept it. I'm a dispensationalist, but I go with the second view because I believe that is what the Scripture portrays.

All of the great revivalists (including John R. Rice as you say) held to the second view: Moody, Finney, Torrey, Sunday, etc. Rice based his view on the fact that the terms "baptism of the Spirit" (Acts 1:8) and "filling of the Spirit" (Acts 2:4) are used interchangeably in Acts for the same event.

 

[John of Japan]

Technically "immersion in [the] Holy Spirit."

I would agree.

What is often missed in discussions like this is that this is a metaphor. No one actually believes that the Holy Spirit is some physical substance that we can be immersed in.

There are other metaphors for the same thing, including the filling of the Spirit (He is not a substance that fills our body or soul), the enduement, or "clothing," with power (Luke 24:49), the Holy Spirit coming upon them (Acts 1:8; He doesn't literally land on someone).

 

[37818]

The first view is basically a dispensational view as I understand it, though other theologies also accept it.

I hoid the view I hold not because of dispensationalism. But I do not believe multiple receivings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Van]

Baptism = Romans 6:4, Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21

Baptize = Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and John 1:33

Filled with the Holy Spirit (prior to Christ's inauguration of the New Covenant) = Luke 1:15, Luke 1:44, and Luke 1:67

Filled with the Holy Spirit (after Christ's inauguration of the New Covenant) = Acts 2:4, Acts 4:8, Acts 4:31, Acts 9:17 and Acts 13:9,

 

[37818]

Receiving the Holy Spirit, John 7:39.
Acts of the Apostles 10:43-48 is identified being the baptism in the Holy Spirit, Acts of the Apostles 11:15-18.

 

[John of Japan]

I hoid the view I hold not because of dispensationalism. But I do not believe multiple receivings of the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe in multiple receivings of the Holy Spirit either. The baptism/filling of the Holy Spirit is about receiving power to do His will from the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[37818]

I don't believe in multiple receivings of the Holy Spirit either. The baptism/filling of the Holy Spirit is about receiving power to do His will from the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Well my understanding includes the singular teaching of baptisms (Hebrews 6:2 per Luke 3:16-17).
In the Holy Spirit if one is saved. In fire for the lost.

 

[John of Japan]

Well my understanding includes the singular teaching of baptisms (Hebrews 6:2 per Luke 3:16-17).

I'm not sure what you mean by "singular," since Hebrews 6:2 is plural and Luke 3:16-17 could be the imperatival future.

 

[37818]

I'm not sure what you mean by "singular," since Hebrews 6:2 is plural and Luke 3:16-17 could be the imperatival future.

Hebrews 6:2 "teaching" is in the singular. And when John spoke of the Holy Spirit and fire Jesus had not yet done so (John 16:7). The fire, as I understand it refers to the future Judgement, Revelation 20:11-15.

 

[John of Japan]

Hebrews 6:2 "teaching" is in the singular. A
nd when John spoke of the Holy Spirit and fire Jesus had not yet done so (John 16:7).

Well, sure, it's not hard to teach about a physical and a spiritual baptism at the same time.

The fire, as I understand it refers to the future Judgement, Revelation 20:11-15.

Interpreting it that way leads to two separate fulfillments of one prophecy, "the Holy Spirit and fire." I'm in favor of interpreting the fire as the "tongues" of fire in Acts 2, which indicate fervency given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are a number of views. Two main views.
1. When one recieves Christ. (My understanding.)
2. As a special indowment of power for Christian sevice. (Dr John R Rice and other
great preachers of the gospel.)

What the two views have in common? There is one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and many fillings.

I am of the point of view that having a later more powerful filling of the Holy Spirit has lead to the second main view.

Another main view would be the classic Pentacostal view, that it is second act of grace. evidenced by speaking in tongues, and empowerment!

 

[Yeshua1]

The first view is basically a dispensational view as I understand it, though other theologies also accept it. I'm a dispensationalist, but I go with the second view because I believe that is what the Scripture portrays.

All of the great revivalists (including John R. Rice as you say) held to the second view: Moody, Finney, Torrey, Sunday, etc. Rice based his view on the fact that the terms "baptism of the Spirit" (Acts 1:8) and "filling of the Spirit" (Acts 2:4) are used interchangeably in Acts for the same event.

I would see it as all are indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit, but to be infilled is the choice for all saved, as its relying upon the power of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

I hoid the view I hold not because of dispensationalism. But I do not believe multiple receivings of the Holy Spirit.

One Holy Spirit, can be indwelt, or refilled!

 

[37818]

Interpreting it that way leads to two separate fulfillments of one prophecy, "the Holy Spirit and fire." I'm in favor of interpreting the fire as the "tongues" of fire in Acts 2, which indicate fervency given by the Holy Spirit.

For me I see a context, Luke 3:16-17, ". . . and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. . . ." Also Matthew 3:11-12. Furthermore the "you" John spoke were made up of both those to be saved and those who would be lost.

 

[John of Japan]

For me I see a context, Luke 3:16-17, ". . . and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. . . ." Also Matthew 3:11-12. Furthermore the "you" John spoke were made up of both those to be saved and those who would be lost.

We'll agree to differ.