-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Every Doctrine Could Cost You....!
- Thread starter TCGreek
- Start date
It was called a baptism of repentance because they had to repent before they got baptized, just as every Christian does today. John himself said: Bring forth fruits meet (suitable) for repentance. In other words if he couldn't see the evidence that they had not repented he would not baptize them. Therefore the only possible interpretation of Mat.3:11 is, "baptized 'because of' (unto--eis) repentance" That is one of the many meanings of this preposition "eis."defenderofthefaith said:
I don't need to do that for Marcia already had. Needless to say that eis is used in many ways with a variety of meanings. Context determines meaning. Please read Marcia's post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1345053&postcount=38
defenderofthefaith
New Member
DHK said:
Its quite clear that the evidence is growing in favor of my argument.
1) Nowhere, in any authoritative NT Greek lexicon, does it even hint that eis could have the possible meaning 'because of'.
It is always into, unto, to, towards, for, among. [source]
As Thayer puts it:
"A Preposition governing the Accusative and denoting entrance into"
Entrance into what? Remission of sins; Acts 2:38
2) The exact same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is founded in Matthew 26:28. The words "for the remission of sins" in Mat. 26:28 in greek are eis aphesis hamartia and it just so happens that in Acts 2:28 these exact same greek words are again used eis aphesis hamartia - "for the remission of sins" so when Matthew 26:28 implies "in order to recieve the forgiveness of sins" it must be the same with Acts 2:38.
3) The argument from Matthew 3:11 can easily be understood when looking at every possible definition for eis (into, unto, to, towards, for, among).
'Among', a literal definiton, has the meaning 'by the joint or reciprocal action of' (dictionary.com) so in Matthew 3:11 we see John baptized them with water with the joint action of repentance. Yes he did baptize them because they repented; but the word eis doesn't ever mean 'because of' it was used saying he baptized them with the adjoining action of repentance.
4) Another look at Matthew 26:28:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
The word 'for' is used two times here, but their underlying greek words are different.
'for many' is peri polys
'for the remission of sins' is eis aphesin hamartion (Same as in Acts 2:38)
eis definition is: into, unto, to, towards, for, among
peri definition is: about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near
Nowhere does eis means 'because of' but it is translated 'for' whereas peri does mean 'because of' and is translated 'for' - but peri isn't found in Acts 2:38.
I do not see Marcia, in any of her posts, or the article she posted explaining why Christ shed his blood because of the forgiveness of sins.
Not true--See Mat.3:11defenderofthefaith said:
I don't believe you have Thayer's full definition.
So what! Leave Mat.26:28. I have no interest in discussing it. It has no bearing on this subject as context defines a word. The context is vastly different.
1. That is heresy. John wasn't a heretic.
2. He baptized because they had repented, not in order that they would repent; you have it backwards.
3. Even so, repentance is never a part of baptism; was never a part of baptism; has never been a part of baptism. This is a heresy that the Church of Christ teaches, and now you are trying to force it into the teaching of John the Baptist. This is despicable to say the least.
Why can't you take the Bible at face value when John says:
Bring forth fruit fit for repentance.
I want to see the fruit of your repentance before I baptized.
I will baptize because you have repented.
That is the only possible meaning of the verse; there is none other.
Did you follow the link that Marcia gave? I doubt it.
Marcia wasn't trying to explain Mat. 26:28. She or I don't have to. It doesn't have any bearing on this topic. We both have already told you that the word eis has many meanings and many ways of being translated depending on the context! You want to force your pre-conceived ideas into the context of both Acts 2:38 (though it goes contrary to the rest of Scripture), and you want to force a meaning into Mat.3:11 which doesn't make sense and is just not there. It is even ridiculous to think that you can even try to attempt to make the word mean anything else but "because of" in Mat. 3:11. He was baptizing them because they had repented. Is that true or false?
Again, don't drag Mat.26:28 in here. We all are aware of the usage of eis in that verse. It has no bearing on this discussion. We are comparing Mat.3:11 to Acts 2:38. It is obvious that if eis can be used in Mat.3:11 in the sense of "because of" then it can also be used in the sense of "because of" elsewhere. We are showing you just that simple argument--not that it is used everywhere with that meaning--it isn't; only that that meaning can sometimes be used when the context warrants. And in Acts 2:38 and in Mat.3:11 the context warrants that the meaning of eis means "on the basis of" or "because of."
defenderofthefaith
New Member
DHK, please, your are seriously going into denial here. Its obvious, eis cannot mean 'because of' nor has it ever. You have other debates to finish (i.e. musical instruments; I'm sorta falling behind on that one, my attention has been pulled to this thread)
I said in a 'authoritative NT Greek lexicon' but nevertheless; Matthew 3:11 doesn't imply that eis means 'because of' and to continue to repeat that you think it does it foolishness.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1519&t=KJV
You can find his entire (and very long) definition of the word eis there (click on - Click Here for Rest of Entry).
Yes, you have no interest in discussing it because there is now way you can get around it so you go with the old "context!!" argument; when the context is very much alike - both are concerning the remission of sins and both verses (Acts 2:38; Matthew 26:28) have the exact same grammatical construction and use the exact same greek words and both have the exact same meaning.
Note that I agreed with you; he did baptize them because they had repented (see post #60) but in Matthew 3:11 he said "I baptize you with water for [eis] repentance" and for (eis) or 'unto' [KJV] was used saying he baptized them along with their previous action of repentance. Yes, it was 'because of' their repentance, but thats not what was being said; it was like "I baptize you with water along with your repentance" - not INTO their repentance; but among their repentance.
Repentance now isn't explicitly a part of the action of baptism (immersion); but repentance must be done along with baptism. Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized..."
Not to mention; John's baptism was called a 'baptism of repentance' and the Greek word for 'of repentance' is one word (metanoia) so it was the baptisma metanoia [the baptism of repentance].
I asked that you explain that verse and you said "I don't need to do that for Marcia already had." which implied that Marcia or the article posted within her post would explain Matt. 26:28 - and it doesn't.
True, which i've said that....4 times now.
DHK said:
I said in a 'authoritative NT Greek lexicon' but nevertheless; Matthew 3:11 doesn't imply that eis means 'because of' and to continue to repeat that you think it does it foolishness.
Of course;
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1519&t=KJV
You can find his entire (and very long) definition of the word eis there (click on - Click Here for Rest of Entry).
Yes, you have no interest in discussing it because there is now way you can get around it so you go with the old "context!!" argument; when the context is very much alike - both are concerning the remission of sins and both verses (Acts 2:38; Matthew 26:28) have the exact same grammatical construction and use the exact same greek words and both have the exact same meaning.
Note that I agreed with you; he did baptize them because they had repented (see post #60) but in Matthew 3:11 he said "I baptize you with water for [eis] repentance" and for (eis) or 'unto' [KJV] was used saying he baptized them along with their previous action of repentance. Yes, it was 'because of' their repentance, but thats not what was being said; it was like "I baptize you with water along with your repentance" - not INTO their repentance; but among their repentance.
Repentance now isn't explicitly a part of the action of baptism (immersion); but repentance must be done along with baptism. Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized..."
Not to mention; John's baptism was called a 'baptism of repentance' and the Greek word for 'of repentance' is one word (metanoia) so it was the baptisma metanoia [the baptism of repentance].
Yes I did and nowhere did it explain Matthew 26:28.
I asked that you explain that verse and you said "I don't need to do that for Marcia already had." which implied that Marcia or the article posted within her post would explain Matt. 26:28 - and it doesn't.
Actually, it does. Both (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38) use the word eis and both have the same grammatical construction and both are about remission of sins - I believe it very much has "bearing on this topic".
True, which i've said that....4 times now.
And you accuse me of "preconcieved ideas" about Acts 2:38. Hah! Look at yourself my friend.
defenderofthefaith
New Member
Correct, you can see my extensive debate threads here and hereEdSutton said:
Assuming for 'the purposes of argument' that is correct, how do you expect to respond when the Lord returns, the trumpet sounds, and His very voice is as that of the trumpet? (Mt. 24:31; I Cor. 15:52; I Thes. 4:16; Rev. 1:10-11) I'm left really wonderin' on that one!
If God wants to use trumpets then he may; but what does that have to with what has been authorized in worship and what has not?
I use KJV and ESV more than any of the other translations. KJV to study and ESV for clarification.
defenderofthefaith
New Member
MorganT said:
And remain faithful. Rev. 2:10
I have been baptized once.
Its quite simple....Hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing and being Baptized are what gain remission of sins but if one falls away (such as those in Galatians 5:4) then what does the Bible tell us to do?
Repent and pray!
Acts 8:22
"Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."
This is what Peter told Simon when he offered money for the power of the Holy Spirit; this was after Simon had been saved (vs. 13) and after Peter had told him his heart was not right in the sight of God (vs. 21)
Hebrews 6:4-6
"...in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt."
The word "sealed" here is sphragizō and that means:
- to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal
- in order to mark a person or a thing
- to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp
- angels are said to be sealed by God
- in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
- to confirm authenticate
- of a written document
- to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
The seal is a "mark" on Christians so that the world may know that they are Christians, since all Christians are a 'peculiar people' (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9) and all Christians stand out of the world because they are in the world but not of the world (John 17:14) and we are the 'light in the world' (Phillipians 2:15) and we have this "mark" (seal) because we have "...the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (2 Corinthians 1:22).
You have a misintereptation of the word 'seal'.
defenderofthefaith
New Member
Amy.G said:
I know isn't it!
Who are you to argue with the Holy Spirit?
Though since the Holy Spirit baptism no longer happens today and we only have water baptism (Ephesians 4:5) one might conclude that it is possible that those who recieved Holy Spirit baptism before water baptism were saved - but this cannot happen today.
Those that recieved Holy Spirit baptism were a very small select few and might have been exempt from the necessary water baptism for remission of sins.
Again, all this is speculation.
Marcia
Active Member
defenderofthefaith said:
What do you mean we don't have Holy Spirit baptism? Every time someone believes in Christ, they are baptized by/into the Holy Spirit. They are also baptized into Christ. Baptize does not always mean with water.
This is salvation: one has faith and is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The water baptism is an outward sign of that.
On Acts 2:38
Source
http://www.backtothebible.org/index.php/Q-Is-water-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-in-Christ.html
You are a typical Church of Christ one liner, taking things out of context and you think you know everything and that everybody else must be wrong. How do I know this because I was Church of Christ for 20 yrs. You can preach it till your green in the face, and it really doesnt matter if I show you that your wrong or not, because you will MAKE IT FIT to what you have been taught with your One liner verses. Here let me show you an example of a one liner. And before I do, let me say no I do not believe this but it is used only for example.
Joh 4:46 Then Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.
Now if I was an alcoholic that wanted to justify drinking, I would simply use this scripture and tell you that if Jesus turned water into wine then there must not be anything wrong with drinking wine. So let me at it. Well we both know that is not the case but you see how misleading a one liner is when its taken out of context.
Joh 4:46 Then Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.
Now if I was an alcoholic that wanted to justify drinking, I would simply use this scripture and tell you that if Jesus turned water into wine then there must not be anything wrong with drinking wine. So let me at it. Well we both know that is not the case but you see how misleading a one liner is when its taken out of context.
defenderofthefaith said:
DHK said:
I'm just coming to this thread so I apologize for responding to posts that may be a few days old.
Not only legalistic DHK but comical. I see so many inconsistencies in there that it's hysterical. You're not to add to Scripture - unless it helps you to obey Scripture like having a church building and such. But music apparently doesn't come under that. you cannot clap unless it's a children's thing. There will be no additional aspects to the service - unless you want to add in other aspects that are approved.
How confusing!! I'm glad that my God is not confusing and His Word is clear. Wow!
Darron Steele
New Member
Regarding Acts 2:38, that has been handled on another thread.Marcia said:
Greek grammar does not work like English grammar. English grammar does not have the variety of expliit word nuances that ancient Greek had. Further, Greek grammar is not tied as closely to word order as English is.
The KJV 1611 and printings up to 1768 handled this verse better than modern printings of the KJV. The 1769 revision of the KJV was done by one man: Benjamin Blayney. He removed a very important comma from between "Christ" and "for" which previously made the KJV more conducive to following the Greek grammar.
Other translations still handle the Greek of the verse well. Most notably, several translations into Portuguese do very well. Portuguese has a wider variety of explicit word nuances which allows it to replicate the Greek of the verse better than English does. Further, it has important punctuation which has been stripped from the KJV by one man.
On that thread, I posted
As for Acts 2:38, the 1769 KJV really botched that one. In Portuguese translations, it is handled rightly; for example: “Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). We repent for remission of sins; baptism is obligated from such repentance. Acts 2:38 is simply Peter obeying Jesus Christ at Luke 24:47 that "repentance for| remission of sins should be preached" (NASB|ASV).
When considering between multiple possible ways that a passage can be translated, a person must:
1) reject any possible translation that contradicts the clear teachings of other passages of Scripture, and
2) consider only possible translations that harmonize with the rest of Scripture.
The Portuguese translation I quoted harmonizes perfectly with the rest of Scripture. The "because of" translation of Greek "eis" at Acts 2:38, which the NKJV margin of Mark 1:4 indicates is possible, also meets this criteria. However, I think the Portuguese translation I quoted and others like it are the best translations I know of on this verse.
Some claim that Acts 2:38 teaches that only those who are baptized will be saved based on the 1769 KJV and translations that followed it here. There are translations of Acts 2:38 that do not teach this -- and harmonize well with the rest of Scripture. I will point out one other passage which helps clarify this matter.
Acts 10:43 says "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV). To claim `everyone that believeth on him, except those who never get baptized, receives remission of sins' means `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.'
It cannot be that Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV) is true, and `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins' is also true. This would posit that a statement and its direct negation are simultaneously true. That would be a direct contradiction.
Only one statement can be true. That is Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV).
When Acts 10 was pointed out by myself and Amy G., the thread went dead shortly thereafter. You can see my remarks on Amy's remarks here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1342789&postcount=220
As of now no contrary answer has been given about Acts 10 on that thread. There is simply no way around this passage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that DOTF is all over the bible pulling one verse from here and one verse from there to prove a point. If its so clear as he claims it to be, then why Oh why is it not just there in plain view and in context. Im so glad that when I turned 20 yrs old that I found my way out of this cult and into the Loving arms of Jesus and the Truth. We must study to show ourselves approved and study it in context as it was written. In my view, if you have to show one verse and its not in context then its not a valid argument.
Someone please show me how in context we are being told to Worship this way as claimed by DOTF. I read these verse as how to act day to day and how to treat others around you in your everyday life. Please point me in the right direction, if I am mistaken. I see nothing saying and when you worship do this in verses 1-18
Eph 5:1-21 Therefore be followers of God, as dear children. (2) And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us, and has given Himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor. (3) For let fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness not be once named among you, as becomes saints, (4) neither baseness, foolish talking, jesting, which are not becoming, but rather giving of thanks. (5) For you know this, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous one (who is an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (6) Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. (7) Therefore do not be partakers with them. (8) For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (9) (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), (10) proving what is acceptable to the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. (14) Therefore he says, "Awake, sleeping ones! And arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." (15) See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (16) redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (17) Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (18) And do not be drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (20) always giving thanks for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (21) submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.
Verse 19 to me says that I should be praising God all week long and that I should be singing songs to myself, you see it says speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and to always thank God for everything (v20) This is daily not just on Sunday during worship. We should be praising God all the time. I see that psalms and hymns could be with or without instruments, not that its a legalist view to do one or the other but to do it period.
Someone please show me how in context we are being told to Worship this way as claimed by DOTF. I read these verse as how to act day to day and how to treat others around you in your everyday life. Please point me in the right direction, if I am mistaken. I see nothing saying and when you worship do this in verses 1-18
Eph 5:1-21 Therefore be followers of God, as dear children. (2) And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us, and has given Himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor. (3) For let fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness not be once named among you, as becomes saints, (4) neither baseness, foolish talking, jesting, which are not becoming, but rather giving of thanks. (5) For you know this, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous one (who is an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (6) Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. (7) Therefore do not be partakers with them. (8) For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (9) (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), (10) proving what is acceptable to the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. (14) Therefore he says, "Awake, sleeping ones! And arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." (15) See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (16) redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (17) Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (18) And do not be drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (20) always giving thanks for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (21) submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.
Verse 19 to me says that I should be praising God all week long and that I should be singing songs to myself, you see it says speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and to always thank God for everything (v20) This is daily not just on Sunday during worship. We should be praising God all the time. I see that psalms and hymns could be with or without instruments, not that its a legalist view to do one or the other but to do it period.
defenderofthefaith
New Member
Marcia said:
We do not have Holy Spirit baptism anymore, like the apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:2-4) or like what happened to the house of Cornelius (Acts 11:15).
Acts 10:47 recognized two different baptisms - water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism; but then Ephesians 4:5 tells us we only have one baptism - so one must exist and the other must have ceased.
We must understand that the Holy Spirit baptism did one thing: "clothed" you "with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) which gave you the power of the Holy Spirit so that you may do miracles (prophecy; speaking in tongues; inspiration of the Holy spirit; ect) but we see that this "shall be done away" when the "perfect is come" (1 Corinthians 13:9-10). The 'perfect' refers to the perfect knowledge of the will of God (i.e. the Bible).
You are trying to attempt to sever the connection between the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” (even though they are connected by the coordinate “and”) on the argument that "repent" is plural in number, while "be baptized" is singular.
According to you (or the author of this article) it would say: “Repent [plural] for the forgiveness of your [plural] sins, and [separate from the before command] each of you [singular] get baptized [as a now-saved person].”
The author appears to think that simply because there is a change in grammatical number, this has disassociated baptism from repentance, and therefore seperated it from the phrase, “for the forgiveness of sins.”
The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well.
It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group—both commands being equally required.
Here is an example: “All who are departing for San Francisco, approach gate three; each of you must have his ticket available for the agent.”
In the book Church Manual Designed For The Use Of Baptist Churches, by J.M. Pendleton he wrote a section concerning the “subjects” who are appropriate candidates for baptism. Pendleton was attempting to explain why baptism may not be administered in the case of infants. A look at Acts 2:38, he wrote:
"The gospel was preached, the people were pierced to the heart, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you.” No man will say that the command “Repent,” is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons were called on to repent and be baptized (1955, 84).
Pendleton here just explained that the command to "repent and be baptized" was given to the entire audience and to try to seperate "repent" and "be baptized" by saying that the difference in plural and singular forms cuts out "be baptized" from the connection with "for the remission of sins" is foolishness.
Acts 2:38
"And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Peter here by saying "every one of you" he is putting emphasis on that fact that everyone, after repenting, must be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" and singularizing it just shows more emphasis on the fact that you must be baptized.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
John baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with what? The Holy Spirit. I love that word "but".
John baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with what? The Holy Spirit. I love that word "but".
The fact is that the verse lies within a historical context of the threat of persecution. When a person received Christ and made the proclamation of Jesus as Lord that meant the emperor could have the person executed because the emperor was the lord. In fact some emperors saw themselves as divine, and some people saw the emperor as divine. When a person proclaimed Jesus as Lord then that also meant that he renounced the emperor as lord.defenderofthefaith said:
Marcia
Active Member
defenderofthefaith said:
The one baptism Eph. refers to is the baptism into Christ by faith, which includes the baptism into the Holy Spirit. It's our baptism into the faith - the one faith. It means that there is only one true baptism. This is not about water baptism.
Eph. 4
4There is (I)one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one (J)hope of your calling;
5(K)one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all (L)who is over all and through all and in all.
In other words, all believers in Christ are united in one Spirit, one Lord, one body, and one faith.
You are confusing the way the Holy Spirit manifested through the apostles in signs and wonders with the fact that all believers are baptized (indwelt) with the Holy Spirit upon belief. If we were not baptized this way, we would not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
As Amy posted, all believers are baptized with the Holy Spirit.