HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT, ie the third member of the Trinity

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

That was Acts2 not now. i am a cessationist when it comes to that. -- Herb Evans

Nowhere does it say they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. It says they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now if you recognize that they were baptized there, why do you not recognize that the Holy Spirit comes into the heart or seals the believer as a similar event?

The OT was different from the NT because of the new covenant.

In regard to what? -- Herb Evans

For starters this passage had not been fulfilled yet. So the preceding passage establish the sign of the fulfillment of the new covenant as the personal presence of the Holy Spirit within the life of the believer.

Jer. 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

The promise of being sealed with the Holy Spirit is now open to all of God's people.

Yes, but sealing and the baptism of the Spirit is two different things. -- Herb Evans

Says you, but the fact remains that when you come to faith in Christ you are given the personal presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit. So, whatever you call it, the Holy Spirit fills your spirit and becomes a permanent fixture in your soul.

Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.

I would agree that the O.T indwelling was temporary, whereas the N.T is permanent. Was Elizabeth an O.T. prophet? -- Herb Evans

Elizabeth was not the one that the Holy Spirit anointed. It was the Holy Spirit in John who was in her stomach. John was given the Spirit from the womb in order to identify his prophetic office.

At Pentecost the church was individually filled/baptized with the Holy Spirit.

No, they were filled AND baptized and spoke in tongues. -- Herb Evans

The Bible says they were filled but it does not use the word baptize.

However, or whatever your point is in trying to distance the word baptism with the person of the Holy Spirit, is beyond me.

The holy Spirit is a person; the baptism WAS an event. Your time frames are mixed up. -- Hreb Evans

I am the one who first offered this thread for discussion and I have demonstrated that I am well aware that the Holy Spirit is the person of God.

The fact remains that you have offered no substantive reason other than you cannot scientifically verify the Holy Spirit baptism and that you for some reason see no indication that individuals are baptized with the Holy Spirit.

I see no reason to believe that individuals were so baptized, because there is no record that there were. I am not about to take some one's word for it. -- Herb Evans

Okay, I am not really all that concerned with what you do or do not believe, as long as you have a chance to hear the truth.

I have shown you where the Ethiopian was instructed to receive the Holy Spirit.

You must have another Bible. in what passage do you find that assertion? -- Herb Evans

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

Moreover there is a clear image of Spirit baptism in Acts 10:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

Also you do not seem to be able to recognize the difference in the OT and NT covenant when it comes to the work of the Spirit.

To borrow your very worn out cliché, that is comparing apples to oranges. Differ epoch altogether. The church is now filled with the Spirit because they have been immersed in the Spirit/sealed with the Spirit.

Well, you have opened up a new can of worms, seemingly advocating a church of all believers. I rcognize only a local church in scripture, whether O.T. or N.T. -- Hreb Evans

To argue that there is no universal church is absurd, unless you only believe that the members of your local church are saved. I recognize the need to have membership in a local church but I am also aware that God pours out his Spirit on everyone of his children.

Moreover, the church is a people and not a corporation or building. You better believe that only believers are in the true church.

Lastly, there is no church in the OT. There is the people of God, but they were not the church. The church is a beneficiary of the new covenant. It is a new institution established by Jesus and instituted through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Herb Evans]

That was Acts 2 not now. i am a cessationist when it comes to that. -- Herb Evans

Nowhere does it say they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. It says they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now if you recognize that they were baptized there, why do you not recognize that the Holy Spirit comes into the heart or seals the believer as a similar event?

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. – Mark 1:8

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. – Acts 1:5

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: -- Acts 2:16, 17

I beg to differ with you. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was prophecied in Mark 1:8. Was reiterated to those in Act 1:5, and explained in Acts 2:16,17

The promise of being sealed with the Holy Spirit is now open to all of God's people.

Yes, but sealing and the baptism of the Spirit is two different things. -- Herb Evans

Says you, but the fact remains that when you come to faith in Christ you are given the personal presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit. So, whatever you call it, the Holy Spirit fills your spirit and becomes a permanent fixture in your soul.

You are linking this truth to a falsehood. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is neither a sealing nor a a filling nor an indwelling. – Herb Evans

Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.

I would agree that the O.T indwelling was temporary, whereas the N.T is permanent. Was Elizabeth an O.T. prophet? -- Herb Evans

Elizabeth was not the one that the Holy Spirit anointed. It was the Holy Spirit in John who was in her stomach. John was given the Spirit from the womb in order to identify his prophetic office.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: -- Luke 1:41

WRONG AGAIN! Elisabeth was FILLED with the Holy Ghost as was Zacharius. Are you sure that you read my article. – Herb Evans

At Pentecost the church was individually filled/baptized with the Holy Spirit.

No, they were filled AND baptized and spoke in tongues. -- Herb Evans

The Bible says they were filled but it does not use the word baptize.

Well, Matt 1:8, Acts 1:5, and Acts 2:16, 17 confirm my assertion that they were baptized by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, whether the word occurs there or not. – Herb Evans

However, or whatever your point is in trying to distance the word baptism with the person of the Holy Spirit, is beyond me.

The holy Spirit is a person; the baptism WAS an event. Your time frames are mixed up. -- Herb Evans

I am the one who first offered this thread for discussion and I have demonstrated that I am well aware that the Holy Spirit is the person of God.

That is fine, but I addressed the difference between the person and the event as well as the time frame. – Herb Evans

The fact remains that you have offered no substantive reason other than you cannot scientifically verify the Holy Spirit baptism and that you for some reason see no indication that individuals are baptized with the Holy Spirit.

I see no reason to believe that individuals were so baptized, because there is no record that there were. I am not about to take some one's word for it. -- Herb Evans

Okay, I am not really all that concerned with what you do or do not believe, as long as you have a chance to hear the truth.

Dittos! Herb Evans

I have shown you where the Ethiopian was instructed to receive the Holy Spirit.

You must have another Bible. in what passage do you find that assertion? -- Herb Evans

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

I still see no instruction for the Ethiopian to receive the Spirit. Is it there or is that another one of your interpolations? – Herb Evans

Moreover there is a clear image of Spirit baptism in Acts 10:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

Clear Image? Again, if you would have read my article clearly, you would know that two of my points deny the “falling of the Holy Spirit” and the “receiving of the Holy Spirit,” events which predated Acts 2 and Acts 10. It is odd that you would deny me Acts 2 on the basis of the word “baptism” not being there, and then proceed to use Acts 10, where the word is also absent. – Herb Evans

Also you do not seem to be able to recognize the difference in the OT and NT covenant when it comes to the work of the Spirit.

We are not talking about covenants; we are discussing the baptism of the Holy Ghost. – Herb Evans

To borrow your very worn out cliché, that is comparing apples to oranges. Differ epoch altogether. The church is now filled with the Spirit because they have been immersed in the Spirit/sealed with the Spirit.

Well, you have opened up a new can of worms, seemingly advocating a church of all believers. I recognize only a local church in scripture, whether O.T. or N.T. -- Herb Evans

To argue that there is no universal church is absurd, unless you only believe that the members of your local church are saved. I recognize the need to have membership in a local church but I am also aware that God pours out his Spirit on everyone of his children.

Well, we will save that debate for another time, since I think the invisible, mystical, universal church is an absurdity. While we are waiting for that, you might read some of the ABSURD old timer Southern Baptists on this. – Herb Evans

Moreover, the church is a people and not a corporation or building.

This is true. The church is a corporate people, an assembly or congregation of people not an ethereal church in the sky. – Herb Evans

You better believe that only believers are in the true church.

The only true church is a local church of true believers. So much for pontification. – Herb Evans

Lastly, there is no church in the OT. There is the people of God, but they were not the church. The church is a beneficiary of the new covenant. It is a new institution established by Jesus and instituted through the Holy Spirit.

Wrong Again!

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: -- Acts 7:38

-- Herb Evans

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. – Mark 1:8

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. – Acts 1:5

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: -- Acts 2:16, 17

I beg to differ with you. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was prophecied in Mark 1:8. Was reiterated to those in Act 1:5, and explained in Acts 2:16,17

Dr. Herb,

You cannot have it both ways. You have made a case that the only baptism of the Spirit occurs in Acts 2. Yet, you have to constructed that opinion based on Mark 1:8 and Acts 1 in order to understand what is happening in Acts 2. In fact I have shown that in Acts 10 Peter states,

47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

It Clearly states they had received the Holy Spirit just as we have. Therefore if you attribute the baptism to only Acts 2, how do you account for the fact that Peter says they received the same baptism in Acts 10. This point alone is really enough to expose your overbearing position, which crumbles under its own weight when put to the test of Scripture.

You are linking this truth to a falsehood. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is neither a sealing nor a a filling nor an indwelling. – Herb Evans

Dr. Herb, in fact in Acts 2 the only section of Scripture you identify as a true baptism of the Holy Spirit, the word used to describe the baptism is not baptizo but is the word for infilling. In verse 4 it says they were filled with the Holy Spirit. So you are wrong again, because the word baptism is not found in Acts 2, but the word used to describe the baptism is infilling. They were filled with the Holy Spirit. You cannot get away from the clear truth of the Bible.

Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.

I would agree that the O.T indwelling was temporary, whereas the N.T is permanent. Was Elizabeth an O.T. prophet? -- Herb Evans

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: -- Luke 1:41

WRONG AGAIN! Elisabeth was FILLED with the Holy Ghost as was Zacharius. Are you sure that you read my article. – Herb Evans

Here again you fail to understand that John was in the womb of Elizabeth and the clear reading of this text demonstrates that Elizabeth is caring a prophet and it is John who is given the Spirit from the womb as a sign of his prophetic office. In the OT the prophet of God was given the Holy Spirit. I guess you are one of those who believes women can be pastors, because you would have us to believe that Elizabeth and not John was the one anointed with a prophetic office. John the Baptist was filled from his mother's womb.

I still see no instruction for the Ethiopian to receive the Spirit. Is it there or is that another one of your interpolations? – Herb Evans

Moreover there is a clear image of Spirit baptism in Acts 10:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

Clear Image? Again, if you would have read my article clearly, you would know that two of my points deny the “falling of the Holy Spirit” and the “receiving of the Holy Spirit,” events which predated Acts 2 and Acts 10. It is odd that you would deny me Acts 2 on the basis of the word “baptism” not being there, and then proceed to use Acts 10, where the word is also absent. – Herb Evans

Was the Ethiopian baptized with John's baptism or the same baptism as everyone else in the book of Acts?

Take the example of Acts 18 and 19. Upon hearing that some disciples had only received John's Baptism they were instructed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 19 states this clearly:

19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in[2] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Well, we will save that debate for another time, since I think the invisible, mystical, universal church is an absurdity. While we are waiting for that, you might read some of the ABSURD old timer Southern Baptists on this. – Herb Evans
Moreover, the church is a people and not a corporation or building.
This is true. The church is a corporate people, an assembly or congregation of people not an ethereal church in the sky. – Herb Evans
You better believe that only believers are in the true church.
The only true church is a local church of true believers. So much for pontification. – Herb Evans

No this debate will not take long, so I will be glad to offer you a better understanding of the true church. You state that you only believe in a local church. Well the local church is not pure. It has on its roles unconverted religious lost people like the Pharisees in Jesus day. The only church is the true church which is composed of only those who genuinely believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord. Each of the local churches across the land is composed of some who are and some who are not truly saved. Take all the ones who are truly saved and you add them up and that is the universal church. Jesus is going to return to collect up the true church and the ones who are false disciples will be left behind. The fact that the apostles wrote general epistles argues to the fact that there is a general church or universal church. Just because it is general or universal does not mean that it is indiscriminant or unidentifiable. Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep hear his voice.

Lastly, there is no church in the OT. There is the people of God, but they were not the church. The church is a beneficiary of the new covenant. It is a new institution established by Jesus and instituted through the Holy Spirit.

Wrong Again!

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: -- Acts 7:38

-- Herb Evans

If you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know better than to go there. The OT people of God were referred to as a congregation not a church, big difference. They gathered together in the wilderness. The NT concept of the church is not found in the OT. Why? Because there are great differences in the covenants which formed them. The OT is ruled by the law and the NT is ruled by grace. Do you not recognize the difference in the people of Israel and the church which was formed in the book of Acts? Each of the epistles in the NT was written to the NT church. Moreover, the true people of God is now identified not by a single association with one people, Israel, but will all people groups. Before the NT it would have been necessary to join Israel and convert to Judaism in order to be a part of the family of God. Now all one need do is believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, regardless of Jew or Gentile.

 

[Herb Evans]

Dr. Herb,

You cannot have it both ways. You have made a case that the only baptism of the Spirit occurs in Acts 2. Yet, you have to constructed that opinion based on Mark 1:8 and Acts 1 in order to understand what is happening in Acts 2. In fact I have shown that in Acts 10 Peter states,

No, I have not made that case at all. The case that I made in Acts 2 was that the rushing sound, the tongues of fire, the shaken place, and the filling of the Spirit ALL were part of the first and only baptism of the Holy Spirit, never in entirety to be repeated again. You cannot have it ONE way in Acts 10 and another way in Acts 2-- Herb Evans

47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

It Clearly states they had received the Holy Spirit just as we have.

No, it does not clearly state that. They received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. They were Baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and also filled with the Holy Sprit. Therefore, seing that it can be proved in prior receivings and prior fillingsm aking the baptism synonymous with that is not correct. Even those of us that have received the HG and indwelt are commanded to be filled, so if we have already been filled, why the command to do so again? -- Herb Evans

Therefore if you attribute the baptism to only Acts 2, how do you account for the fact that Peter says they received the same baptism in Acts 10. This point alone is really enough to expose your overbearing position, which crumbles under its own weight when put to the test of Scripture.


Peter NEVER said that; that is your interpolation. It would be the same as saying that any speaking in tongues after Acts 2 was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is exactly what the Charismatics do. -- Herb Evans[/B]

You are linking this truth to a falsehood. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is neither a sealing nor a a filling nor an indwelling. – Herb Evans

Dr. Herb, in fact in Acts 2 the only section of Scripture you identify as a true baptism of the Holy Spirit, the word used to describe the baptism is not baptizo but is the word for infilling.

Yes, Acts 2 is the only place that it occured; still, you are ignoring Mark 1:8 and Acts 1:5 that confirm Acts 2 as the fulfillment of the promise of it. -- Herb Evans

In verse 4 it says they were filled with the Holy Spirit. So you are wrong again, because the word baptism is not found in Acts 2, but the word used to describe the baptism is infilling. They were filled with the Holy Spirit. You cannot get away from the clear truth of the Bible.

Again you mistake that which was included in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, namely, the filling of the Holy Spirit. By your reasoning, we are baptized over and over everytime we are filled with the Spirit. This is much like the Charismatic reasoning. Also, you are saying that everyone prior to Acts 2 were baptized by the Holy Spirit. -- Hreb Evans

Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.

I would agree that the O.T indwelling was temporary, whereas the N.T is permanent. Was Elizabeth an O.T. prophet? -- Herb Evans

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: -- Luke 1:41

WRONG AGAIN! Elisabeth was FILLED with the Holy Ghost as was Zacharius. Are you sure that you read my article. – Herb Evans

Here again you fail to understand that John was in the womb of Elizabeth and the clear reading of this text demonstrates that Elizabeth is caring a prophet and it is John who is given the Spirit from the womb as a sign of his prophetic office. In the OT the prophet of God was given the Holy Spirit. I guess you are one of those who believes women can be pastors, because you would have us to believe that Elizabeth and not John was the one anointed with a prophetic office. John the Baptist was filled from his mother's womb.

It says that Elisabeth was filled not John in this passage; It also says that John was filled from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15), but you still have not addressed Zach's filling.

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied . . .

I still see no instruction for the Ethiopian to receive the Spirit. Is it there or is that another one of your interpolations? – Herb Evans

Moreover there is a clear image of Spirit baptism in Acts 10:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

Clear Image? Again, if you would have read my article clearly, you would know that two of my points deny the “falling of the Holy Spirit” and the “receiving of the Holy Spirit,” events which predated Acts 2 and Acts 10. It is odd that you would deny me Acts 2 on the basis of the word “baptism” not being there, and then proceed to use Acts 10, where the word is also absent. – Herb Evans

Was the Ethiopian baptized with John's baptism or the same baptism as everyone else in the book of Acts?

I'm glad that you resolved your error in regard to the Ethiopian being instructed to receive the Holy Spirit, but you have not given up. Yes, the Ethiopian was baptized with the same baptism as John's baptism. What makes you think that he did not? -- Herb Evans

Take the example of Acts 18 and 19. Upon hearing that some disciples had only received John's Baptism they were instructed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 19 states this clearly:

19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in[2] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

I'm glad that all you have here is an interpolation, for it does not say that they were instructed to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. thes folks had a faulty water baptism for whatever reason. Now, Mr. "the word baptism is not there," your move! -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

-continued

Well, we will save that debate for another time, since I think the invisible, mystical, universal church is an absurdity. While we are waiting for that, you might read some of the ABSURD old timer Southern Baptists on this. – Herb Evans

Moreover, the church is a people and not a corporation or building.

This is true. The church is a corporate people, an assembly or congregation of people not an ethereal church in the sky. – Herb Evans

You better believe that only believers are in the true church.

The only true church is a local church of true believers. So much for pontification. – Herb Evans

No this debate will not take long, so I will be glad to offer you a better understanding of the true church. You state that you only believe in a local church. Well the local church is not pure. It has on its roles unconverted religious lost people like the Pharisees in Jesus day. The only church is the true church which is composed of only those who genuinely believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord. Each of the local churches across the land is composed of some who are and some who are not truly saved. Take all the ones who are truly saved and you add them up and that is the universal church. Jesus is going to return to collect up the true church and the ones who are false disciples will be left behind. The fact that the apostles wrote general epistles argues to the fact that there is a general church or universal church. Just because it is general or universal does not mean that it is indiscriminant or unidentifiable. Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep hear his voice.

I have started a new thread. It is unecessary to further obfuscate the issue of my article on the baptism of the Holy SSpirit. -- herb Evans

Lastly, there is no church in the OT. There is the people of God, but they were not the church. The church is a beneficiary of the new covenant. It is a new institution established by Jesus and instituted through the Holy Spirit.

Wrong Again!

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: -- Acts 7:38 -- Herb Evans

If you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know better than to go there.

Do I hear a "Dost thou teach us?" -- Herb Evans

The OT people of God were referred to as a congregation not a church, big difference. They gathered together in the wilderness. The NT concept of the church is not found in the OT. Why? Because there are great differences in the covenants which formed them. The OT is ruled by the law and the NT is ruled by grace. Do you not recognize the difference in the people of Israel and the church which was formed in the book of Acts? Each of the epistles in the NT was written to the NT church. Moreover, the true people of God is now identified not by a single association with one people, Israel, but will all people groups. Before the NT it would have been necessary to join Israel and convert to Judaism in order to be a part of the family of God. Now all one need do is believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, regardless of Jew or Gentile.

This would be fine if the family of God were synonymous with the church, but it isn't. Of course this rhetoric is to be expected from one who claims to be both Methodist and Baotist in his personal description. The church is a congregation and/or an assembly.

Psa 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

Psa 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Did you take my advice and look up some old time Southern Baptists who believed the same absurdities that I do? Have a nice day! -- Herb Evans

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm sure I'm out of my league in all this, but I offer a couple of observations.

1. There is confusion between the church and the kingdom.Those who refer to the universal church are actually talking about the kingdom. Some say they are one and the same. I don't think they are.

2. The word church can properly be "assembly." The only kinds of these assemblies are local. Except, of course, the great general assembly in heaven.

3. The debate is over who does the HS filling or baptizing. The HS does not baptize or fill. God does (or did) both. No one is baptized by the HS. We are baptized with or in, or filled with.

 

[Herb Evans]

Tom Butler]I'm sure I'm out of my league in all this, but I offer a couple of observations.

Tom, If you want my opinion, you are not out of your league at all. You also post clearly and concisely. I like that. -- Herb Evans

1. There is confusion between the church and the kingdom.Those who refer to the universal church are actually talking about the kingdom. Some say they are one and the same. I don't think they are.

I agree with you. When you are born again you are translated into the spiritual KOG/KOH and are a member of the family of God, all without water baptism. -- Herb Evans

2. The word church can properly be "assembly." The only kinds of these assemblies are local. Except, of course, the great general assembly in heaven.

I agree with you again. The church is an assembly or congregation. And of course, there is a future assembly of all believers to look forward to. -- Herb Evans

3. The debate is over who does the HS filling or baptizing. The HS does not baptize or fill. God does (or did) both. No one is baptized by the HS.

I agree again. Except I allow for the "by" in 1 Cor. 12:13 in that it is used in an enabling sense like the several other "bys" that proceed it in regard to Holy Spirit healing and etc. -- Herb Evans

We are baptized with or in, or filled with.

I need some clarification here on the "we." Do you believe that folks are baptized in the Holy Spirit today, although I agree that we can be filled today? -- Herb Evans

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

-continued

Well, we will save that debate for another time, since I think the invisible, mystical, universal church is an absurdity. While we are waiting for that, you might read some of the ABSURD old timer Southern Baptists on this. – Herb Evans

Moreover, the church is a people and not a corporation or building.

This is true. The church is a corporate people, an assembly or congregation of people not an ethereal church in the sky. – Herb Evans

You better believe that only believers are in the true church.

The only true church is a local church of true believers. So much for pontification. – Herb Evans

No this debate will not take long, so I will be glad to offer you a better understanding of the true church. You state that you only believe in a local church. Well the local church is not pure. It has on its roles unconverted religious lost people like the Pharisees in Jesus day. The only church is the true church which is composed of only those who genuinely believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord. Each of the local churches across the land is composed of some who are and some who are not truly saved. Take all the ones who are truly saved and you add them up and that is the universal church. Jesus is going to return to collect up the true church and the ones who are false disciples will be left behind. The fact that the apostles wrote general epistles argues to the fact that there is a general church or universal church. Just because it is general or universal does not mean that it is indiscriminant or unidentifiable. Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep hear his voice.

I have started a new thread. It is unecessary to further obfuscate the issue of my article on the baptism of the Holy SSpirit. -- herb Evans

Lastly, there is no church in the OT. There is the people of God, but they were not the church. The church is a beneficiary of the new covenant. It is a new institution established by Jesus and instituted through the Holy Spirit.

Wrong Again!

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: -- Acts 7:38 -- Herb Evans

If you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know better than to go there.

Do I hear a "Dost thou teach us?" -- Herb Evans

The OT people of God were referred to as a congregation not a church, big difference. They gathered together in the wilderness. The NT concept of the church is not found in the OT. Why? Because there are great differences in the covenants which formed them. The OT is ruled by the law and the NT is ruled by grace. Do you not recognize the difference in the people of Israel and the church which was formed in the book of Acts? Each of the epistles in the NT was written to the NT church. Moreover, the true people of God is now identified not by a single association with one people, Israel, but will all people groups. Before the NT it would have been necessary to join Israel and convert to Judaism in order to be a part of the family of God. Now all one need do is believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, regardless of Jew or Gentile.

This would be fine if the family of God were synonymous with the church, but it isn't. Of course this rhetoric is to be expected from one who claims to be both Methodist and Baotist in his personal description. The church is a congregation and/or an assembly.

Psa 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

Psa 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Did you take my advice and look up some old time Southern Baptists who believed the same absurdities that I do? Have a nice day! -- Herb Evans

You have said absolutely nothing in this post that is worth my reply. Your logic is circular. I believe that the Holy Spirit baptism is only found in Acts 2, so any thing else is not Holy Spirit baptism.

 

[Herb Evans]

You have said absolutely nothing in this post that is worth my reply. Your logic is circular. I believe that the Holy Spirit baptism is only found in Acts 2, so any thing else is not Holy Spirit baptism.

Then it is just as well that you hit, turn tail, run, and hide and stop replying, young fellow! I am certainly not going to consent to it happening somewhere else with only someone's "say so."-- Herb Evans

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/HFEV/Strawman.gif

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Then it is just as well that you hit, turn tail, run, and hide and stop replying, young fellow! I am certainly not going to consent to it happening somewhere else with only someone's "say so."-- Herb Evans

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/HFEV/Strawman.gif

I am not turning tall and running and hiding Dr. Herb. You are not making a case that is worth any more time. Your case is not based on anything other than a circular logic. I see that now. It would be an abysmal waste of time for me to keep badgering you. I have more than shown you why your understanding is wrong. I am like a trial attorney who is ready to rest my case. I have a peace about what I have offered you and wish you nothing but the best in your walk with the Lord.

 

[Herb Evans]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]I am not turning tall and running and hiding Dr. Herb. You are not making a case that is worth any more time. Your case is not based on anything other than a circular logic.

Well, your case could be categorized as absential reasoning, since you have made no case at all. -- Herb Evans

I see that now. It would be an abysmal waste of time for me to keep badgering you. I have more than shown you why your understanding is wrong. I am like a trial attorney who is ready to rest my case. I have a peace about what I have offered you and wish you nothing but the best in your walk with the Lord.

But the irony is that youy still feel pretty good about your windy and verbose case. One thing for sure, I will never hire you as my attorney. Thanks for the effort and Goodbye! -- Herb Evans

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]I am not turning tall and running and hiding Dr. Herb. You are not making a case that is worth any more time. Your case is not based on anything other than a circular logic.

Well, your case could be categorized as absential reasoning, since you have made no case at all. -- Herb Evans

I see that now. It would be an abysmal waste of time for me to keep badgering you. I have more than shown you why your understanding is wrong. I am like a trial attorney who is ready to rest my case. I have a peace about what I have offered you and wish you nothing but the best in your walk with the Lord.

But the irony is that youy still feel pretty good about your windy and verbose case. One thing for sure, I will never hire you as my attorney. Thanks for the effort and Goodbye! -- Herb Evans

There is no convincing someone who does not follow a progressive logic. You are by your own logic beyond the reach of anyone.

I have shown you that the Holy Spirit filled not baptized the saints according to Acts 2:4. However, the fact remains we may very well understand this to be the actual baptism that is referred to through the passages that precede this one such as the ones you've mentioned in Mark and Acts 1.

Yet, while you will allow that there is an interpretive choice made in order to see the Holy Spirit as baptizing believers in Acts 2, you seem completely unable to appreciate the same nuance in other instances, most notably Acts 10:45-47:

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

The fact remains that Peter proclaims that the converts in Acts 10 received the same baptism that he had as recorded in Acts 2.

However, according to your circular logic that is not possible because anything other than Acts 2 is an infilling and not a baptism. You have offered, however, no real explanation that satisfies my level of demand as to what the substantive difference is between an infilling, sealing and baptism of the Spirit.

Moreover, your theology is not well enough developed to appreciate the difference between the OT people of God who existed under a different covenant and the NT church which fulfills Jer. 31:31. This makes it difficult for me to really further benefit from our exchanges due to your lack of insight into what is otherwise a very easily discernible distinction within most Baptist circles, with the exception of Reformed Covenantal Theologians, masquerading as Baptists.

 

[Herb Evans]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]There is no convincing someone who does not follow a progressive logic. You are by your own logic beyond the reach of anyone.

There is no convincing someone who uses pejorative charges and accusations instead of scriptural logic. I answered you point/counterpoint and followed your progression, so if there is a problem with progressive logic, it is yours. -- Herb Evans

I have shown you that the Holy Spirit filled not baptized the saints according to Acts 2:4.

I was well aware of that filling as I was of all the other fillings that preceded it. Neither that filling, the speaking in tongues, the tongues of fire, or the mighty rushing wind negates the fact that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, according to Mark 1:8 and Acts 1:5 that confirms that it was. -- Herb Evans

However, the fact remains we may very well understand this to be the actual baptism that is referred to through the passages that precede this one such as the ones you've mentioned in Mark and Acts 1.

Yes, you might work on that perspective a while. -- Herb Evans

Yet, while you will allow that there is an interpretive choice made in order to see the Holy Spirit as baptizing believers in Acts 2, you seem completely unable to appreciate the same nuance in other instances, most notably Acts 10:45-47:

Acts 10 was "not many days hence" and only had parts of Acts 2. Your interpretive choice must have a basis as mine does. -- Hreb Evans

The fact remains that Peter proclaims that the converts in Acts 10 received the same baptism that he had as recorded in Acts 2.

No, you messed with the wording. They received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Are we to believe that every time tongue occurs, it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost? I trow not. -- Herb Evans

However, according to your circular logic that is not possible because anything other than Acts 2 is an infilling and not a baptism. You have offered, however, no real explanation that satisfies my level of demand as to what the substantive difference is between an infilling, sealing and baptism of the Spirit.

Well, you never asked for it from me, and I did not volunteer anything that would encourage you to go on to more of the tangents that you have gone already. You don't seem to understand the filling. The filling can be deciphered from the passage that tells you not to be filled with wine but with the Spirit. The filling is the control of the Holy Spirit, that is why we are told to do so. If we have already been filled why get filled again if it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The sealing is a finished transaction, an earnest of our inheritance. - Herb Evans

Moreover, your theology is not well enough developed to appreciate the difference between the OT people of God who existed under a different covenant and the NT church which fulfills Jer. 31:31. This makes it difficult for me to really further benefit from our exchanges due to your lack of insight into what is otherwise a very easily discernible distinction within most Baptist circles, with the exception of Reformed Covenantal Theologians, masquerading as Baptists.

Do I detect another "Dost thou teach us?" We are not discussing covenants. -- Herb Evans

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]There is no convincing someone who does not follow a progressive logic. You are by your own logic beyond the reach of anyone.

There is no convincing someone who uses pejorative charges and accusations instead of scriptural logic. I answered you point/counterpoint and followed your progression, so if there is a problem with progressive logic, it is yours. -- Herb Evans

I have shown you that the Holy Spirit filled not baptized the saints according to Acts 2:4.

I was well aware of that filling as I was of all the other fillings that preceded it. Neither that filling, the speaking in tongues, the tongues of fire, or the mighty rushing wind negates the fact that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, according to Mark 1:8 and Acts 1:5 that confirms that it was. -- Herb Evans

However, the fact remains we may very well understand this to be the actual baptism that is referred to through the passages that precede this one such as the ones you've mentioned in Mark and Acts 1.

Yes, you might work on that perspective a while. -- Herb Evans

Yet, while you will allow that there is an interpretive choice made in order to see the Holy Spirit as baptizing believers in Acts 2, you seem completely unable to appreciate the same nuance in other instances, most notably Acts 10:45-47:

Acts 10 was "not many days hence" and only had parts of Acts 2. Your interpretive choice must have a basis as mine does. -- Hreb Evans

The fact remains that Peter proclaims that the converts in Acts 10 received the same baptism that he had as recorded in Acts 2.

No, you messed with the wording. They received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Are we to believe that every time tongue occurs, it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost? I trow not. -- Herb Evans

However, according to your circular logic that is not possible because anything other than Acts 2 is an infilling and not a baptism. You have offered, however, no real explanation that satisfies my level of demand as to what the substantive difference is between an infilling, sealing and baptism of the Spirit.

Well, you never asked for it from me, and I did not volunteer anything that would encourage you to go on to more of the tangents that you have gone already. You don't seem to understand the filling. The filling can be deciphered from the passage that tells you not to be filled with wine but with the Spirit. The filling is the control of the Holy Spirit, that is why we are told to do so. If we have already been filled why get filled again if it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The sealing is a finished transaction, an earnest of our inheritance. - Herb Evans

Moreover, your theology is not well enough developed to appreciate the difference between the OT people of God who existed under a different covenant and the NT church which fulfills Jer. 31:31. This makes it difficult for me to really further benefit from our exchanges due to your lack of insight into what is otherwise a very easily discernible distinction within most Baptist circles, with the exception of Reformed Covenantal Theologians, masquerading as Baptists.

Do I detect another "Dost thou teach us?" We are not discussing covenants. -- Herb Evans

Part of the ability to genuinely benefit from an exchange of ideas is the ability to appreciate the other side. I can appreciate not only your position but I also can understand your criticism of my own position.

Your position is that what took place in Acts 2 is the only instance of Holy Spirit baptism and that every other instance of filling with the Spirit is separate from and not to be confused with Holy Spirit baptism, because Holy Spirit baptism was a tangible observable supernatural and historical occurrence with fire and speaking in tongues as key marks and all other instances are different inasmuch they are infillings.

Your criticism of my position is that I confuse infilling sealing and baptism of the Holy Spirit, probably due to my apparent lack of familiarity with your article which you were gracious enough to post here for the readers on Baptist Board.

Yet, you have not shown any regard for my criticism of your position. Your logic is circular and therefore it does not need validation because it rests upon the merit of its own claims. Your logic is as follows: I believe that the Holy Spirit baptism is only found in Acts 2, so any thing else is not Holy Spirit baptism.

Live well my friend and enough the nurture of your loving Savior who is able to redeem and preserve us until the day of his coming.

 

[Herb Evans]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]Part of the ability to genuinely benefit from an exchange of ideas is the ability to appreciate the other side. I can appreciate not only your position but I also can understand your criticism of my own position.

That is both noble and gracious of you. -- Herb Evans

Your position is that what took place in Acts 2 is the only instance of Holy Spirit baptism and that every other instance of filling with the Spirit is separate from and not to be confused with Holy Spirit baptism, because Holy Spirit baptism was a tangible observable supernatural and historical occurrence with fire and speaking in tongues as key marks and all other instances are different inasmuch they are infillings.

Yes. -- Herb Evans

Your criticism of my position is that I confuse infilling sealing and baptism of the Holy Spirit, probably due to my apparent lack of familiarity with your article which you were gracious enough to post here for the readers on Baptist Board.

That is correct. -- Herb Evans

Yet, you have not shown any regard for my criticism of your position. Your logic is circular and therefore it does not need validation because it rests upon the merit of its own claims. Your logic is as follows: I believe that the Holy Spirit baptism is only found in Acts 2, so any thing else is not Holy Spirit baptism.

I would say that your best shot was Acts 10. Normally, knowing some that hold that was an exact duplication of Acts 2, I allow some leadway as long as folks who believe that way are not trying to change or confuse the baptism of the Spirit with the infilling that occured in both places. Unfortunately, you did not fall into that category that I could extend that leniency, so I didn't. -- Herb Evans

Live well my friend and enough the nurture of your loving Savior who is able to redeem and preserve us until the day of his coming.

Dittos to you sir. Until another day of jousting some other time. Thank you for being a sport. -- Herb Evans

 

[Tom Butler]

In a previous post, I wrote:
We are baptized with or in, or filled with.

Dr. Herb asked:
I need some clarification here on the "we." Do you believe that folks are baptized in the Holy Spirit today, although I agree that we can be filled today? -- Herb Evans

Dr. Herb, sorry I was not clear. I believe we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (or, are baptized with) at the moment of salvation. I also believe that there can be subsequent fillings, but not subsequent baptisms.

 

[Herb Evans]

In a previous post, I wrote:
We are baptized with or in, or filled with.

Dr. Herb asked:
I need some clarification here on the "we." Do you believe that folks are baptized in the Holy Spirit today, although I agree that we can be filled today? -- Herb Evans

Dr. Herb, sorry I was not clear. I believe we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (or, are baptized with) at the moment of salvation. I also believe that there can be subsequent fillings, but not subsequent baptisms.

I thought that is what you meant. Now, how do you support this from scripture? Other than a corporate baptism of believers, do you know of any individual that was so baptized in the Spirit anywhere in the N.T. ?

 

[Tom Butler]

The HS baptism of the believers in the upper room in Acts 2 was of course corporate in the sense that it fell on them all as a group But it was also an individual baptism, since it fell on individuals.

I also believe that a similar baptism of the HS occurred at Cornelius home in Acts 10:44.

 

[Herb Evans]

The HS baptism of the believers in the upper room in Acts 2 was of course corporate in the sense that it fell on them all as a group But it was also an individual baptism, since it fell on individuals.

I also believe that a similar baptism of the HS occurred at Cornelius home in Acts 10:44.

I am willing to refrain from arguing Acts 10, which has no bearing on our difference here. Still, you are saying that these saved folks all got saved in the baptism in Acts 2 and allegedly in Acts 10. Now, your problem is that they were already saved with their names written in heaven. Did they get saved again in this baptism of individuals? in Acts 10:44, it is the them or the collective group that the HG fell upon.

Also, Israel (singular) also was baptized corporately or collectively in the cloud and the sea. But to reduce that to baptisms (plural) of individuals (plural) would be a stretch. Now, can you produce an individual baptism of a person synonymous with his salvation apart from a corporate set up? -- Herb Evans

 

[Tom Butler]

Of course, the HS fell on believers in Acts 2, and they were not saved a second time. I see this as a one-time event, which empowered the believers in the upper room. The Scripture is silent whether it happened to the 3000 who were saved that day.

I also see the Acts 10 outpouring as more for Peter's benefit and the Jewish believers who were with him--a sign to them that the hated Gentiles were also beneficiaries of God's grace. It was also evidence to Peter that they had been saved.

As to your question about any other individual who received the HS outside of a group setting, the answer is no, I can't think of one. Nor do I think it is necessarythat there be one, since the HS had already fallen on individuals in the groups.