PDA

View Full Version : The baptism with the Holy Spirit



foudroyant
06-18-2014, 07:18 PM
1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs only one time when a person is placed into the body of Christ (The Church). If one has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then that person is not a Christian.
Those in Acts 2:4 were already saved but it was this event that placed them into the body of Christ.

The following terms synonymously describe what the Holy Spirit does only once to a person upon entering the body of Christ/Church.
a. Fell (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15)
b. Poured (Acts 10:45; Titus 3:6)
c. Received (Acts 2:38; 8:17; 10:47)
d. Baptized (Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:3, etc.)
*e. Filled (11:17; 15:8 cf. Acts 2:4)
f. Given (Acts 8:18; 11:17; 15:8)
g. Came (Acts 1:8; 19:6)
h. Clothed (Luke 24:49; Galatians 3:27)
i. Sealed (Ephesians 1:13)


*The filling of the Holy Spirit can occur again after one enters the body of Christ/Church (Acts 9:17; Acts 13:9).
Mounce: Even after people are permanently filled with the Spirit at conversion, the Spirit can again fill them in a sense that he possesses and empowers them in a special way for a temporary, specific task, such as when Peter spoke to the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8) and the church prayed for boldness (4:31). Paul is filled with the Spirit (9:17) and almost immediately begins to testify (9:20). He is later filled with the Spirit again and denounces Elymas the magician (13:9) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Fill, page 250).
--------------------------------------------------
2. Paul
Romans 6:3
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (NASB)
This saving baptism results in the Christian no longer being "slaves to sin" (Romans 6:6). This "spirit of slavery" is cancelled because the Christian has received the "Spirit of adoption" (Romans 8:15).
a. Danker: of those who believe in Christ and are accepted by God as God's children with full rights that we might receive the adoption as sons ("that" to "sons" written in Greek) Gal 4:5; cp. Eph 1:5. The Spirit, whom the converts receive, works as pneuma huiothesias Ro 8:15 (opp. pn. douleias = such a spirit as is possessed by a slave, not by the son of a house). The believers enter into full enjoyment of their huiothesia only when the time of fulfillment releases them fr. the earthly body vs. 23 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, huiothesia, page 1024).
b. EDNT: The Spirit received by the believers is pneuma huiothesias (and not douleias) and allows them to experience the new father-son relationship (Rom 8:15) (3:381, F. Hahn).
c. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in Romans (2:29; 5:5; 7:6; 8:2, 9, 23; 12:1-2).

1 Corinthians 6:11
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (NASB)
1. TDNT: Similarly, when pneuma is the power of sanctification (R. 15:16; 1 C. 6:11; also 2 Th. 2:13), one cannot say whether Paul's emphasis is that the Spirit sets us in God's saving action and justifies us, or that He enables us to live thereby in concrete obedience. The two are one in the same (6:431, pnueuma, Schweizer).
2. NIDNTT: The Spirit as the fundamental mark of belonging to Christ.
As with the first Christians so with Paul, the gift of the Spirit is what makes the individual a member of Christ (Rom. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 11:4; 1 Thess. 4:8), united with him through the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17), a sharer in his sonship (Rom. 8:14-6; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit, as it were, is the exalted Lord's steward taking possession of his property on his behalf (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19 f.). It is the reception of the Spirit through faith which marks the beginning of the Christian life (Gal. 3:2 f.), a gift which fulfills the promise to Abraham and which therefore is another name for justification (Gal. 3:14; 1 Cor. 6:11) - that is, the gift of righteousness understood as having "the character of power" (cf. E. Kasemann, "'The Righteousness of God' in Paul", New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 168-182). Alternatively expressed, it is by being baptized in the one Spirit, drenched with the one Spirit, that individuals become members of the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). For Paul it was precisely the gift of the Spirit which distinguished the Christian from the Jew, the new age from the old (Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6-8; Gal. 4:29; Phil. 3:3) (3:700-7011, Spirit, J.D.G. Dunn).

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (NASB)
a. NIDNTT: For several reasons it seems probable that en heni pneumati in 1 Cor. 12:13 means not (“by one Spirit" but "in (or with) one Spirit". (a) Elsewhere hypo expresses personal agency with baptizw. (b) There is no certain instance of an instrumental en with baptizw: in other examples of en pneumati, the parallel with en hydati dictates that en should mean "in" or "with" and not "by (means of)", denoting personal agency, see Matt. 9:34; 12:24, 28; Acts 17:31 [cf. 4:12]; Phil. 4:13). (c) In the logia of John the Baptist regarding "Spirit-baptism", it is always Jesus who is the baptizer, never the Spirit. Accordingly in 1 Cor. 12:13, the agent should be taken as implied (viz. Jesus Christ). (d) In the one place Paul uses en with baptizw (1 Cor. 10:2), the prep. is local in sense ("in the cloud and in the sea"). (e) The following phrase "we were all given one Spirit to drink" (1 Cor. 12:13b) suggests an inward participation in the Spirit to which a preceding outward "immersion in the Spirit" would correspond. The Spirit is both around (v. 13a) and within (v. 13b; cf. Eph. 5:18). (f) The parallel en heni pneumati in Eph. 2:18 cannot be an instrumental use of en, since di' autou (= Christ) precedes (but cf. Eph. 3:5; 4:30). However en tw heni pneumati in 1 Cor. 12:9 is undoubtedly instrumental in sense, in light of the preceding dia tou pneumatos (1 Cor. 12:8; cf. vv. 7, 8b, 11). To deny that en is instrumental in 1 Cor. 12:13 is not, of course, to deny the personality of the Spirit, but simply to recognize that baptizw need not always mean "to baptize in water" but may be used metaphorically of immersion, inundation or deluging (3:1210, Appendix, en, Murray Harris).
b. NIDNTT: it is by being baptized in the one Spirit, drenched with the one Spirit, that individuals become members of the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) (3:701, Spirit, J.D.G. Dunn).
c. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in Paul's letters to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 3:16; 6:11, 17-19; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 3:3, 6, 16-18; 5:5; 11:4)

Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (NASB)
a. Clothing oneself with Christ is the same thing as being baptized with Christ without any reference to water baptism (Luke 24:49 cf. Acts 1:5).
And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:49, NASB)
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. (Acts 1:5, NASB)
b. Comparing to Galatians 3:14 with Galatians 3:29 being a descendant of Abraham is the result of receiving the promise of the Spirit.
in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14, NASB)
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29, NASB)
c. Mounce: Several places in the NT identify what God has promised as the end-time gift of the Holy Spirit. In Lk. 24:49 Jesus tells the disciples that he is sending "the promise of the Father" to them, and then in Acts 1:4 this thought is resumed when the disciples are instructed to remain in Jerusalem and await "the promise of the Father." In Acts 2:33 it becomes explicit that in this case "the promise of the Father" is the Holy Spirit as Luke records Peter saying in his Pentecost sermon: "having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out this that you see and hear." Paul connects the promise of the Holy Spirit to the blessing of Abraham in Gal. 3:14. (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Promise, page 542).
d. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in Galatians (3:2-5; 5:16-26).

Ephesians 5:26
so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. (NASB).
1. The washing of the water refers to the cleansing administered by the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the word of God.
Whedon: Referring, no doubt, to baptism, in which the water is the symbolical element of the sanctifying Spirit, which is the real element.
By the gospel word, which is preached, by which baptism is effected, and which is concentrated into the final baptism formula.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/view.cgi?bk=48&ch=5

Colossians 2:11-12
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (NASB)
1. TDNT: For him the only true Jew is the one who is a Jew in secret, and the only true circumcision is that of the heart (peritome kardias), R. 2:28 f. This circumcision of the heart is, of course, the work of the Spirit, not of man, v. 29. This means that the circumcision of the heart is for Paul identical with redemption by Christ, and in Col. 2:11 f. he can even call baptism the peritome Xristou (6:83, peritemnw, Meyer).
2. Thomas Constable: Our spiritual circumcision (v. 11) took place when God regenerated us (cf. Gal. 5:24). It involved Christ cutting off the dominion of our sinful nature (flesh), which slavery characterizes the unregenerate person (cf. Rom. 7:24-25). "Baptism" (v.12) is Spirit baptism (Notes on Colossians, Thomas L. Constable, 2013 Edition, page 35).
3. Before the Gentiles were water baptized they were worshiping in the Spirit of God (Acts 10:46) so thus they were already part of the "true circumcision" (Philippians 3:3) before they were water baptized (cf. Colossians 2:11). Since they were "praying in the Holy Spirit" they were building themselves up on their "most holy faith" (Jude 1:20).
a. NIDNTT: When later in Caesarea the first pagans received the Holy Spirit and became members of the church, they also shared in the grace of worshipping and praising God "in other tongues", as again later the disciples of John the Baptist who became believers in Ephesus (Acts 10:46; 19:6) (3:1080, Word, H. Haarbeck).
b. Vine: It is used metaphorically and spiritually of believers with reference to the act, Col. 2:11 and Rom. 2:29; to the condition, Phil. 3:3 (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Circumcision, page 184).
c. NIDNTT: For Paul it was precisely the gift of the Spirit which distinguished the Christian from the Jew, the new age from the old (Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6-8; Gal. 4:29; Phil. 3:3)...Similarly worship and prayer were not a matter of liturgical rote or outward form, but worship was characterized precisely as worship in or by the Spirit of God (Rom. 2:28f; Phil 3:3; cf. Eph. 2:18, 22) (3:701 -702, Spirit, J.D.G. Dunn).
d. NIDNTT: Jude 19-20 is very Pauline in character: believers are those who by definition have the Spirit, whereas those who boast of their spirituality thereby give evidence of their unspirituality (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12-3:4); he alone outside the Pauline letters exhorts his readers to pray in the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 6:18) (3:705, Spirit, J.D.G. Dunn).

Titus 3:5-6
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (NASB)
a. Philip H. Towner: But here, as in Eph 5:26, the term falls into the metaphorical sphere, with the image of washing referring to a spiritual cleansing. Some have seen in this image a reference to the rite of water baptism, but there is reason to see it rather as a reference to the work of the Spirit in terms of a "washing" that, then, the outward rite of water baptism might serve to symbolize...
While there are numerous variations, two main arrangements of the two nouns in relation to "washing" and the preceding preposition have been suggested.
1. through the washing of rebirth and (through) renewal by the Holy Spirit
In this case, the decision has been made to isolate two operations, the first "the washing of rebirth," and the second (by assuming the repetition of the preposition) "renewal by the Holy Spirit."
2. through the washing of (i.e., that effects) rebirth and renewal, (which washing is done) by the Holy Spirit
Here, however, the single preposition dia is thought to indicate a single "washing" that produces the complex result, "rebirth and renewal," with the final genitive, "of the Holy Spirit," understood as the agent of the "washing."
Solving this difficulty is not a simple matter. But two factors give the stronger support to the second arrangement. First, the conceptual similarity of the metaphors "rebirth" and "renewal" suggests unity. Second, this implication is strengthened by the fact that they are governed in this instance by the single preposition dia. The most likely intention of the phrase is, then, to view a single event from two slightly different, yet interrelated, perspectives. This rules out the possibility the text conceives of two separate events (either, according to the liturgical traditions, baptism and confirmation, or according to the Pentecostal tradition, conversion and baptism in the Spirit).
If one complex event is mind, then the final genitive phrase, "of (or by) the Holy Spirit," despite its location at the end of the phrase, is best understood at attributing this "washing" by which people are saved to the agency of the Holy Spirit. What Paul has done with this material thus far (and will develop further) is to emphasize the present reality of the salvation event by describing it in terms of the gift of the Holy Spirit (The Letters to Timothy and Titus, Philip H. Towner, p. 781, 783).
b. See also Michael Porter
http://vintage.aomin.org/NotByWorks.html


Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism (NASB)
1. As demonstrated above baptism with the Holy Spirit for Paul constitutes the one baptism that places a person into the body of Christ.
2. Some may insist that when it reads "one baptism" it must mean "only" water baptism remains otherwise if Spirit baptism still takes place that would mean there are two baptisms when this passage reads "one baptism". Furthermore, in Acts 11:15-17 Peter had to go all the way back to what took place in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) to give the only other example when the baptism with the Holy Spirit took place. If it was a regular occurrence he would not have had to have done this.
In response to this I will point out again that there is only baptism that places a person into the body of Christ and this refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, Mark 10:39 teaches that John would still undergo a "baptism" (his death) even after Ephesians 4:5 was written.
By referring back to the baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 11:17) Peter is not saying this was only the second time this event took place. It was because the Jews had such extreme misgivings about the Gentiles that Peter needed to emphasize that since the Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit they were just as much part of the Church as when he and the others with him were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Having the Holy Spirit "poured" upon you (Acts 10:45) and being baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16) is the same thing. This pouring = baptism applies to all who are Christians (Titus 3:6).
In fact, Christ's death is described as both a "pouring" and a "baptism".
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12, NASB).
But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" (Mark 10:38, NASB)
3. Mounce: The OT stress laid in Isaiah's promise of a Messiah who would have a special endowment of the Spirit (Isa. 61:1-3) and on Joel's prophecy about the pouring out of the Spirit on the godly in the last days (Joel 2:28-29)...Just as John baptized with water, the one coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11, 16). Such imagery describes the type of "Spirit baptism" the believer receives - a baptism of the Spirit prophesied in the OT and fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Spirit, page 676).
4. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in Ephesians (1:13-14; 2:18; 3:6, 16; 4:30).

Continued...

foudroyant
06-18-2014, 07:19 PM
3. Peter
1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (NASB)
1. Robertson: The saving by baptism in which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Romans 6:2-6)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/view.cgi?bk=59&ch=3
2. The ark is a type of Christ (See "Gleanings in Genesis" by Arthur W. Pink, 'The Typology of the Ark', chapter 13).
a. Before the waters of the flood came they were already sealed in the ark (Luke 17:27). Likewise, before one is water baptized today they are already sealed in Christ (Ephesians 1:13).
b. The ark was provided before the cataclysm so was Christ (Revelation 13:8).
c. The ark provided deliverance to Noah while Christ provides deliverance to us (Colossians 1:13).
d. There was only one ark and there is only one Savior (Acts 4:12).
e. God revealed the ark to Noah and God reveals Christ to us (2 Corinthians 4:6).
f. God waited patiently for those to come into the ark and He waits patiently for people to receive Christ (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).
g. There was a limited amount of time to enter the ark (Genesis 7:11-13) just as there is a limited amount of time to receive salvation in Christ (2
Corinthians 6:2).
h. The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14). Christ was the root out of parched ground (Isaiah 53:2) and a branch (Isaiah 11:1).
i. The ark was to have a "cover/pitch" (kopher) inside and out (Genesis 6:14). It had no value without this covering. This same word "kaphar" (verb form) is used to describe the atonement because of the blood of Christ (Leviticus 17:11).
j. Inside the ark one was saved from God's wrath - the same with Christ (John 3:36).
k. Only a few people were saved in the ark (Genesis 7:7) while only a few people will be saved in Christ (Matthew 7:13-14).
3. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in Peter's epistles:
NIDNTT: To the idea of sanctification by the Spirit (1:2) there is added the blunt warning, "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who has called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct" (1:14f.; cf. Lev. 19:2). This is continued in 2:5: "and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Thus the dynamic of the outpouring of the Spirit is here restated in terms of the holy functions of the priesthood (2:230, Holy, Seebass).
------------------------------------------------
4. John
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". (NASB).
1. Vine: Some regard the kai, "and," in John 3:5, as epexegetic, = 'even,' in which case the water would be emblematic of the Spirit, as in John 7:38 (cp. 4:10, 14) (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Water, page 1214).
2. Water baptism in the name (authority) of the Triune God was not even implemented or discussed yet so the Lord Jesus would not have expected Nicodemus to make the connection that "water" would refer to water baptism (John 3:10). Indeed, there is not one Old Testament text that teaches this as well.
3. This work of the Holy Spirit is also referenced elsewhere in John's writings (1:33; 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:17; 1 John 2:20, 27; 3:24; 4:13).
-----------------------------------------------
5. Other passages
a. John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. (NASB)
Some may claim that the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles in John 20:22 before Pentecost (Acts 2:4).
When the Lord Jesus said "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22) it is to be understood prophetically to what took place in Acts 2:4 because:
1. Thomas wasn’t there when this event took place but he was there with the others during Pentecost.
2. The Lord Jesus will "send" (present tense) the Holy Spirit to them whereas the second half of the passage points to this taking place at a later date (Luke 24:49). W.E. Vine asserts that this event "...was symbolic of the Holy Spirit about to be sent in the world, and with the effect of their ministry of the gospel in the forgiveness of sins by the Spirit's power, or the retention of sins by the rejection of the message (vv. 23, 24). It was a prophetic act as well as symbolic" (John: His Record of Christ, page 183).
3. The Old Covenant practice of casting lots was employed to ascertain who would replace Judas. Casting lots was no longer necessary nor was it practiced during the age of the Spirit (Acts 2:4f.)
David Peterson: It is important to observe that there are no further examples of such decision making in the NT. As those who were about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant, the apostles were using a practice that was sanctioned by God but belonged to the old era. It took place before Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in a way that signified a new kind of relationship between God and his people. From Luke's emphasis on the Spirit's role in giving wisdom, guidance, and direction, it would appear that the apostolic example on this occasion is not to be followed by Christians today. (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Acts, page 128-129).
4. NIDNTT: The recognition that John is making a theological point in Jn. 20:22 (death, resurrection, ascension and gift of Spirit form a single theological unity), rather than offering a strict chronological account, should render unnecessary any attempt to achieve a chronological or theological harmonization of Jn. 20:22 with Acts 2 (3:704, Spirit, J.D.G. Dunn).

b. The Samaritans (Acts 8) and the disciples of John (Acts 19) became Christians when they received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands.
1. The apostles request the gift of the Spirit for those baptised by them, Ac. 8:15 (6:54, peri, Riesenfeld).
2. TDNT: Ac. 19:6 shows that the age of salvation has already dawned; the Holy Spirit comes on the believers in Ephesus by the laying on of the hands of Paul (2:675, erchomai, Schneider).
3. Wuest: Acts 19:6 has to do with a special case where Jews had come into salvation under the Old Testament dispensation of law and now were receiving the added benefits of the Age of Grace, a case which cannot occur today (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 3:109, chapter 4, Light from the Greek on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit: The Fullness of the Spirit).
4. Bruce: The sequence of the component elements in Christian initiation varies from one occasion to another in Acts. Peter's hearers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost repent, are baptized, and receive the Spirit (2:38, 41); the Samaritans evangelized by Philip believed and are baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus", but do not receive the Spirit until apostolic hands are laid on them (8:12, 14-17); Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit while they are still listening to the message and are then baptized (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, F.F. Bruce, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).
5. TDNT: What a man receives from God (or Christ) is in the first instance this pneuma (J. 7:39; 20:22; Ac. 1:8; 2:38; R. 8:15; 1 C. 2:12), along with His specific charismatic operations (1 Pt. 4:10). Reception of the pneuma distinguishes Christians from the world (Jn. 14:17) and so unequivocally constitutes them Christians that (in Ac.) the answer to the question whether there has been reception of the Spirit determines absolutely whether a man is a Christian or not (Ac. 10:47; 19:2) (4:7, lambanw, Delling)

37818
06-20-2014, 12:14 PM
1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs only one time when a person is placed into the body of Christ (The Church). If one has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then that person is not a Christian. . . .

I agree. Jesus baptizes/immerses the saved now with the Holy Spirit, and the lost with fire in the judgement (Matthew 3:11-12).

foudroyant
06-20-2014, 10:39 PM
I agree. Jesus baptizes/immerses the saved now with the Holy Spirit, and the lost with fire in the judgement (Matthew 3:11-12).

There are different takes on what the baptism with fire means (I am undecided):

Debatable
1. Danker: whether pur in Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16 refers to reception of the Holy Spirit (esp. in Lk 3:16) or to the fire of divine judgment is debatable (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pur, page 898).
2. NIDNTT: In Matt. 3:11 the phrase en pneumatic hagiw kai pyri points not to two baptisms (viz., the righteous with the Holy Spirit, the wicked with fire), but to a single baptism in Spirit-and-fire, that may be interpreted either as the messianic purification and judgment that would be effected by the Spirit (cf. Isa. 4:4; 30:28) and experienced by all, or as the outpouring of the Spirit on believers at Pentecost that would refine and inflame them (3:1178, Appendix – 5. Neglect of the Possible Significance of (a) the Non-repetition of the Preposition with Copulated Nouns, and (b) the Order of Nouns that follow a Preposition, Murray Harris).
3. Louw/Nida: In Mt 3.11 ‘fire’ is generally regarded as a reference to the experience of Pentecost, but it is possible to understand ‘fire’ in this context as referring to judgment (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 53:49 footnote #6, page 539).
4. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament: Baptism with fire is explained in Matthew 3:12; it is a baptism of judgment separating the wheat from the chaff, and burning the chaff with fire unquenchable (Allen, Com. in loc .; so || Luke 3:17). This interpretation, however, is denied by Plummer (International Critical Commentary on Luke 3:16 ), who prefers a reference to the purifying power of the grace given, or to the fiery trials that await Christians. Others see a reference to the tongues like as of fire at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdn/view.cgi?n=254

Judgment
1. TDNT: Concerning Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16: The coming Messiah will give penitents the Spirit promised for the last time (cf. 1 QS 4:20-22) and judge the recalcitrant with fire (6:943, pur, Lang).
2. Vine: of the fire of Divine judgment upon the rejectors of Christ, Matt. 3:11 (where a distinction is to be made between the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the fire of Divine retribution; Acts 2:3 could not refer to baptism); Luke 3:16 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Fire, page 432).
3. Thayer: of the fire of hell…Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pur, page 558). with the addition kai puri to overwhelm with fire (those who do not repent), i.e. to subject them to the terrible penalties of hell, Mt. 3:11 (baptizw, page 94).
4. Fausset's Bible Dictionary: John the Baptist, as the last and greatest prophet of the Old Testament dispensation, declared of the Messiah, "He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire," referring to His judicial aspect, "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:11-12). Fire also symbolizes the purifying of believers by testing dealings (Malachi 3:2), also the holy zeal kindled in them as at Pentecost (Acts 2; Isaiah 4:4). The same Holy Spirit who sanctifies believers by the fire of affliction dooms unbelievers to the fire of perdition.
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/fbd/view.cgi?n=1278
5. Broadus: But what is meant by the additional words, and fire? Observe that in the preceding verse the fire receives the unfruitful trees, and in the next verse the fire consumes the chaff. Matthew 3:11 evidently teaches the same general lesson, and it would therefore be natural to understand the fire which ends each of the three parallel sentences in essentially the same way as a fire which consumes the wicked. And notice that Luke (Luke 3:16) who also gives 'and fire,' has the other images of burning the unfruitful trees and the chaff, (Luke 3:9, Luke 3:17) while in Mark 1:8, John 1:33; and Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16, where the other images are not mentioned, neither are the words 'and fire' given. This would seem to leave no doubt as to the meaning of these words. The objection is that in the other images (Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:12) two classes are distinguished, and the destiny of each is separately stated; while here it is simply 'shall baptize you,' one class of persons, 'in the Holy Spirit and fire,' without even repeating the preposition before 'fire' as if it meant one class and one destiny, though stated by means of two terms. But the 'you' whom John is addressing are not simply the believing and penitent, but the Jews in general, with special reference at the outset (Matthew 3:7 f.) to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now it had been predicted by Malachi (Matthew 3:1 ff.) that the messenger of the covenant would come and purify the nation (especially the Levites, who were necessary to a bettered worship and national life), as silver is purified in a furnace; and this does not simply mean that he would purify individuals by consuming what was faulty in them, but Malachi 4:1-3 shows it to mean that he would purify the nation by consuming the wicked individuals like 'stubble,' and then the truly righteous of the nation would rejoice and prosper. The nation would be, as it were, thrown into a furnace of fire, which would consume the wicked among them, and leave a purified nation. In like manner, John says, the mighty Coming One will 'plunge you,' the Jews whom he is addressing, 'in the Holy Spirit and fire'; some will be consumed and some preserved, a purified people. Just how far the 'Holy Spirit' in John's mouth differs from the O. T. and approaches the N. T. idea, it would be very difficult, and is not necessary, to determine. But it can scarcely be questioned that John's thought is connected with that of Malachi, and if so, the explanation just offered is in all probability correct. Compare Bleek. More or less similar is the view of Origen, Fritzsche, Neander, de Wette, Hengstenberg, Meyer, Reynolds. Many, however, suppose that the 'Holy Spirit' is to be taken in the strictly N. T. sense, and 'fire' is simply appended as an image of the Spirit's purifying work upon the individual, consuming his faults. So Chrys., most Roman Catholic commentators, Calvin, Olshausen, Ewald, Godet, Edersh., Morison, and a number of others. Some of these think we have a similar expression in John 3:5, 'born of water and the Spirit,' and some refer to the tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost as an actual exhibition of the image which John here employed. Such a view disregards the striking parallelism of Matthew's three sentences, and rejects the guidance of Malachi. Our Lord promised the disciples (Acts 1:5) a baptism in the Holy Spirit ere many days, which wan fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and on that day appeared tongue-shaped flames sit ting on their heads, and obviously symbolizing the power of speaking with other tongues. And it is maintained that this is what John meant. But Jesus did not in his promise add 'and fire,' and there is no mention of fiery tongues in the case of Cornelius and his household, when Peter expressly recognized (Acts 11:16) a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. Nay, the forerunner meant something deeper and broader than the power of speaking with tongues; he was describing the great work of discrimination, by which some would be destroyed and the rest purified.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jbm/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=3

The Holy Spirit
1. Mounce: Fire is also connected to the presence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3). In at least two places fire represents the reception of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16) (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Fire, page 253).
2. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: This expression is used in Matthew 3:11 . The copulative και, kai requires that the baptism "in the Holy Ghost and in fire," should be regarded as one and the same thing. It does violence to the construction, therefore, to make this statement refer to the fire of judgment. The difficulty has always been in associating fire with the person of the Holy Ghost. But in the connection of fire with the work or influence of the Holy Ghost the difficulty disappears. The thought of John is that the Saviour would give them the Divine Sanctifier as purifying water to wash away their sins and as a refining fire to consume their dross; to kindle in their hearts the holy flame of Divine love and zeal; to illuminate their souls with heavenly wisdom. The statement, therefore, in this verse indicates the manner in which Christ will admit them to discipleship and prepare them for His service.
http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedia/isb/view.cgi?n=1146


Pentecost
1. Alford: This was literally fulfilled at the day of Pentecost: but Origen and others refer the words to the baptism of the righteous by the Holy Spirit, and of the wicked by fire. I have no doubt that this (which I am surprised to see upheld by Neander, De Wette, and Meyer) is a mistake in the present case, though apparently (to the superficial reader) borne out by Matthew 3:12. The double symbolic reference of fire, elsewhere found, e.g. Mark 9:50, as purifying the good and consuming the evil, though illustrated by these verses, is hardly to be pressed into the interpretation of πυρί in this verse, the prophecy here being solely of that higher and more perfect baptism to which that of John was a mere introduction. To separate off πν. ἁγίῳ as belonging to one set of persons, and πυρί as belonging to another, when both are united in ὑμᾶς, is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole. The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another: the baptism by water, the end of which is μετάνοια, a mere transition state, a note of preparation,—and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire, the end of which is (Matthew 3:12) sanctification, the entire aim and purpose of man’s creation and renewal.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=3

Obsidian
06-20-2014, 11:26 PM
I think the fire refers to his judgment in general, including his discipline over the believer

37818
06-22-2014, 09:23 PM
There are different takes on what the baptism with fire means (I am undecided):

Debatable
1. Danker: whether pur in Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16 refers to reception of the Holy Spirit (esp. in Lk 3:16) or to the fire of divine judgment is debatable (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pur, page 898).
2. NIDNTT: In Matt. 3:11 the phrase en pneumatic hagiw kai pyri points not to two baptisms (viz., the righteous with the Holy Spirit, the wicked with fire), but to a single baptism in Spirit-and-fire, that may be interpreted either as the messianic purification and judgment that would be effected by the Spirit (cf. Isa. 4:4; 30:28) and experienced by all, or as the outpouring of the Spirit on believers at Pentecost that would refine and inflame them (3:1178, Appendix – 5. Neglect of the Possible Significance of (a) the Non-repetition of the Preposition with Copulated Nouns, and (b) the Order of Nouns that follow a Preposition, Murray Harris).
3. Louw/Nida: In Mt 3.11 ‘fire’ is generally regarded as a reference to the experience of Pentecost, but it is possible to understand ‘fire’ in this context as referring to judgment (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 53:49 footnote #6, page 539).
4. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament: Baptism with fire is explained in Matthew 3:12; it is a baptism of judgment separating the wheat from the chaff, and burning the chaff with fire unquenchable (Allen, Com. in loc .; so || Luke 3:17). This interpretation, however, is denied by Plummer (International Critical Commentary on Luke 3:16 ), who prefers a reference to the purifying power of the grace given, or to the fiery trials that await Christians. Others see a reference to the tongues like as of fire at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdn/view.cgi?n=254

Judgment
1. TDNT: Concerning Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16: The coming Messiah will give penitents the Spirit promised for the last time (cf. 1 QS 4:20-22) and judge the recalcitrant with fire (6:943, pur, Lang).
2. Vine: of the fire of Divine judgment upon the rejectors of Christ, Matt. 3:11 (where a distinction is to be made between the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the fire of Divine retribution; Acts 2:3 could not refer to baptism); Luke 3:16 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Fire, page 432).
3. Thayer: of the fire of hell…Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pur, page 558). with the addition kai puri to overwhelm with fire (those who do not repent), i.e. to subject them to the terrible penalties of hell, Mt. 3:11 (baptizw, page 94).
4. Fausset's Bible Dictionary: John the Baptist, as the last and greatest prophet of the Old Testament dispensation, declared of the Messiah, "He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire," referring to His judicial aspect, "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:11-12). Fire also symbolizes the purifying of believers by testing dealings (Malachi 3:2), also the holy zeal kindled in them as at Pentecost (Acts 2; Isaiah 4:4). The same Holy Spirit who sanctifies believers by the fire of affliction dooms unbelievers to the fire of perdition.
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/fbd/view.cgi?n=1278
5. Broadus: But what is meant by the additional words, and fire? Observe that in the preceding verse the fire receives the unfruitful trees, and in the next verse the fire consumes the chaff. Matthew 3:11 evidently teaches the same general lesson, and it would therefore be natural to understand the fire which ends each of the three parallel sentences in essentially the same way as a fire which consumes the wicked. And notice that Luke (Luke 3:16) who also gives 'and fire,' has the other images of burning the unfruitful trees and the chaff, (Luke 3:9, Luke 3:17) while in Mark 1:8, John 1:33; and Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16, where the other images are not mentioned, neither are the words 'and fire' given. This would seem to leave no doubt as to the meaning of these words. The objection is that in the other images (Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:12) two classes are distinguished, and the destiny of each is separately stated; while here it is simply 'shall baptize you,' one class of persons, 'in the Holy Spirit and fire,' without even repeating the preposition before 'fire' as if it meant one class and one destiny, though stated by means of two terms. But the 'you' whom John is addressing are not simply the believing and penitent, but the Jews in general, with special reference at the outset (Matthew 3:7 f.) to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now it had been predicted by Malachi (Matthew 3:1 ff.) that the messenger of the covenant would come and purify the nation (especially the Levites, who were necessary to a bettered worship and national life), as silver is purified in a furnace; and this does not simply mean that he would purify individuals by consuming what was faulty in them, but Malachi 4:1-3 shows it to mean that he would purify the nation by consuming the wicked individuals like 'stubble,' and then the truly righteous of the nation would rejoice and prosper. The nation would be, as it were, thrown into a furnace of fire, which would consume the wicked among them, and leave a purified nation. In like manner, John says, the mighty Coming One will 'plunge you,' the Jews whom he is addressing, 'in the Holy Spirit and fire'; some will be consumed and some preserved, a purified people. Just how far the 'Holy Spirit' in John's mouth differs from the O. T. and approaches the N. T. idea, it would be very difficult, and is not necessary, to determine. But it can scarcely be questioned that John's thought is connected with that of Malachi, and if so, the explanation just offered is in all probability correct. Compare Bleek. More or less similar is the view of Origen, Fritzsche, Neander, de Wette, Hengstenberg, Meyer, Reynolds. Many, however, suppose that the 'Holy Spirit' is to be taken in the strictly N. T. sense, and 'fire' is simply appended as an image of the Spirit's purifying work upon the individual, consuming his faults. So Chrys., most Roman Catholic commentators, Calvin, Olshausen, Ewald, Godet, Edersh., Morison, and a number of others. Some of these think we have a similar expression in John 3:5, 'born of water and the Spirit,' and some refer to the tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost as an actual exhibition of the image which John here employed. Such a view disregards the striking parallelism of Matthew's three sentences, and rejects the guidance of Malachi. Our Lord promised the disciples (Acts 1:5) a baptism in the Holy Spirit ere many days, which wan fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and on that day appeared tongue-shaped flames sit ting on their heads, and obviously symbolizing the power of speaking with other tongues. And it is maintained that this is what John meant. But Jesus did not in his promise add 'and fire,' and there is no mention of fiery tongues in the case of Cornelius and his household, when Peter expressly recognized (Acts 11:16) a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. Nay, the forerunner meant something deeper and broader than the power of speaking with tongues; he was describing the great work of discrimination, by which some would be destroyed and the rest purified.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jbm/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=3

The Holy Spirit
1. Mounce: Fire is also connected to the presence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3). In at least two places fire represents the reception of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16) (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Fire, page 253).
2. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: This expression is used in Matthew 3:11 . The copulative και, kai requires that the baptism "in the Holy Ghost and in fire," should be regarded as one and the same thing. It does violence to the construction, therefore, to make this statement refer to the fire of judgment. The difficulty has always been in associating fire with the person of the Holy Ghost. But in the connection of fire with the work or influence of the Holy Ghost the difficulty disappears. The thought of John is that the Saviour would give them the Divine Sanctifier as purifying water to wash away their sins and as a refining fire to consume their dross; to kindle in their hearts the holy flame of Divine love and zeal; to illuminate their souls with heavenly wisdom. The statement, therefore, in this verse indicates the manner in which Christ will admit them to discipleship and prepare them for His service.
http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedia/isb/view.cgi?n=1146

Pentecost
1. Alford: This was literally fulfilled at the day of Pentecost: but Origen and others refer the words to the baptism of the righteous by the Holy Spirit, and of the wicked by fire. I have no doubt that this (which I am surprised to see upheld by Neander, De Wette, and Meyer) is a mistake in the present case, though apparently (to the superficial reader) borne out by Matthew 3:12. The double symbolic reference of fire, elsewhere found, e.g. Mark 9:50, as purifying the good and consuming the evil, though illustrated by these verses, is hardly to be pressed into the interpretation of πυρί in this verse, the prophecy here being solely of that higher and more perfect baptism to which that of John was a mere introduction. To separate off πν. ἁγίῳ as belonging to one set of persons, and πυρί as belonging to another, when both are united in ὑμᾶς, is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole. The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another: the baptism by water, the end of which is μετάνοια, a mere transition state, a note of preparation,—and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire, the end of which is (Matthew 3:12) sanctification, the entire aim and purpose of man’s creation and renewal.
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=3

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

Whereas the word of God is explicit, ". . . now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. . . . and [with] fire: . . . he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. " -- Matthew 3:10-12.

". . . Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. " -- Matthew 7:10.

". . . As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; . . ." -- Matthew 13:40.

". . . And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. " -- Matthew 13:42.

". . . shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. " -- Matthew 13:50.

". . . Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: . . ." -- Matthew 25:41.

". . . the fire is not quenched. " -- Mark 9:48.

". . . If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned. " -- John 15.6.

foudroyant
06-22-2014, 09:55 PM
1. Why cite the Book of Mormon?
2. Why can't the use of "and" ('kai' in Greek) be used epexegetically?

I am leaning towards the view held by Alexander MacLaren:
But take one warning word in conclusion. The alternative for every man is to be baptized in the fire or to be consumed by it. The symbol of which we have been speaking sets forth the double thought of purifying and destruction. Nothing which we have said as to the former in the least weakens the completing truth that there is in it an under side of possible terror. One of the felicities of the emblem is its capacity to set forth this twofold idea. There is that in the divine nature which the Bible calls wrath, the necessary displeasure and aversion of holy love from sin and wrong-doers. There is in the divine procedure even now and here, the manifestation of that aversion in punishment. 'The light of Israel becomes a flaming fire.'


See full article:
http://biblehub.com/library/maclaren/expositions_of_holy_scripture_a/the_baptism_in_fire.htm

37818
07-07-2014, 08:18 PM
1. Why cite the Book of Mormon?Because it is an example of a view believing the Spirit and the fire are referring to the same thing. In my view neither that view nor the BoM are Biblical.


2. Why can't the use of "and" ('kai' in Greek) be used epexegetically?Can you give a couple other supporting examples for this?

It is my understanding that that conjunction typically refers to more than one thing. But were a "definite article" a "noun" the conjunction "kai" followed by a second "noun" without the article then both "nouns" refer to one thing.
" the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. Where "the Christ" with the conjunction "kai" is being called "God."



I am leaning towards the view held by Alexander MacLaren:
But take one warning word in conclusion. The alternative for every man is to be baptized in the fire or to be consumed by it. The symbol of which we have been speaking sets forth the double thought of purifying and destruction. Nothing which we have said as to the former in the least weakens the completing truth that there is in it an under side of possible terror. One of the felicities of the emblem is its capacity to set forth this twofold idea. There is that in the divine nature which the Bible calls wrath, the necessary displeasure and aversion of holy love from sin and wrong-doers. There is in the divine procedure even now and here, the manifestation of that aversion in punishment. 'The light of Israel becomes a flaming fire.'

See full article:
http://biblehub.com/library/maclaren/expositions_of_holy_scripture_a/the_baptism_in_fire.htmThat interpretation seems convoluted to me. I gave the references supporting the understanding I see. The only reference which can be suggested that the "Spirit" and the "fire" refer to the same thing is what appeared on Pentecost (Acts 2:3). And I do not see it to have any real supporting connection. Where ". . . now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. . . . _ . . . with fire: Whose fan 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." -- [I]Luke 3:9, . . . 17. Seems explicit enough for me. (Revelation 21:7, 8.)

Can you set these two views in contrast?

foudroyant
07-07-2014, 11:05 PM
1. An example of 'kai' being used epexegetically is in John 3:5.
Vine: Some regard the kai, "and," in John 3:5 , as epexegetic, == "even," in which case the "water" would be emblematic of the Spirit, as in John 7:38 (cp. John 4:10,14)
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved/view.cgi?n=3285
2. How is MacLaren's view convoluted?

The same pillar of fire which gladdened the ranks of Israel as they camped by the Red Sea, shone baleful and terrible to the Egyptian hosts. The same Ark of the Covenant whose presence blessed the house of Obed-edom, and hallowed Zion, and saved Jerusalem, smote the Philistines, and struck down their bestial gods. Christ and His gospel even here hurt the men whom they do not save.
(See citation in Post #7).

phat8594
07-08-2014, 12:11 PM
1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs only one time when a person is placed into the body of Christ (The Church). If one has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then that person is not a Christian.
Those in Acts 2:4 were already saved but it was this event that placed them into the body of Christ.

The following terms synonymously describe what the Holy Spirit does only once to a person upon entering the body of Christ/Church.
a. Fell (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15)
b. Poured (Acts 10:45; Titus 3:6)
c. Received (Acts 2:38; 8:17; 10:47)
d. Baptized (Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:3, etc.)
*e. Filled (11:17; 15:8 cf. Acts 2:4)
f. Given (Acts 8:18; 11:17; 15:8)
g. Came (Acts 1:8; 19:6)
h. Clothed (Luke 24:49; Galatians 3:27)
i. Sealed (Ephesians 1:13)


So then what do you make of this:


19 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 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.



And remember, that Acts also comes after the gospels:


20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “[B]Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”




...just some thoughts to think about

foudroyant
07-08-2014, 03:24 PM
1. Acts 19 is in letter "g". I'm not really sure what you mean when you ask what I make of it. Please explain.
2. John 20 was addressed in Post #2 (part #5).

37818
07-09-2014, 07:43 PM
1. An example of 'kai' being used epexegetically is in John 3:5.
Vine: Some regard the kai, "and," in John 3:5 , as epexegetic, == "even," in which case the "water" would be emblematic of the Spirit, as in John 7:38 (cp. John 4:10,14)
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved/view.cgi?n=3285At one time I understood John 3:5 (New Scofield Study Bible) in that way. But my understanding of the usage of kai shows that of water and of Spirit are two distinct births (v.6) in reply to Niicodemus' question (v.4). And as it is, there are 5 different interpretations as to the meaning of "water."

" . . . εξ υδατος και πνευματος . . . " . . . out of water and Spirit . . . v.5 see v.6 two births are qualified.

As to John 7:38, John 4:10, 14 also Revelation 22:17. That usage is not an issue with me. Since as I said, I once interpreted the "water" of John 3:5 in that way. But as I now believe I understand the grammar on the context of v.5 it cannot apply in that way. Note Vine noted, "Some regard . . . ." I do not.

Do you have another example which may explicitly support epexegetic usage of "kai?" If not, that is fine too. We at this point, on this point do not agree.




2. How is MacLaren's view convoluted?It has to be explained, and even in that it is not explicit. Where the "you" whom John speaks to, whom Jesus will immerse, are both those who would be saved and the lost. The saved receive the Holy Spirit now in this life, and the lost will receive the lake of fire after the judgement.





The same pillar of fire which gladdened the ranks of Israel as they camped by the Red Sea, shone baleful and terrible to the Egyptian hosts. The same Ark of the Covenant whose presence blessed the house of Obed-edom, and hallowed Zion, and saved Jerusalem, smote the Philistines, and struck down their bestial gods. Christ and His gospel even here hurt the men whom they do not save.
(See citation in Post #7).I do fail to see the connection to the Holy Spirit somehow being that fire (Matthew 3:11). How do you, in your understanding "connect the dots?"

foudroyant
07-09-2014, 07:55 PM
1. If you consult Danker or Thayer's lexicons they list how kai can be used epexegetically.
OK...I still think that in John 3:5 water refers to the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. I believe that kai is used epexegetically -> Holy Spirit, that is fire.

37818
07-09-2014, 08:10 PM
So then what do you make of this:

19 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[b] 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.

As foudroyant had explained,
g. Came (Acts 1:8; 19:6)
Acts 19:6 was an example of receiving the Holy Spirit using the term "Came." ". . . the Holy Spirit came on them, . . . "

phat8594
07-13-2014, 08:40 AM
1. Acts 19 is in letter "g". I'm not really sure what you mean when you ask what I make of it. Please explain.
2. John 20 was addressed in Post #2 (part #5).

Acts 19 is an example of where belief and the 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit are noted as separate events. It seems to me that the explanations in the post assume dispensations. In other words the explanations don't necessarily explore it exegetically, but theologically (based on prior theology).


John 20 seems to me much the same. Thomas not being there seems an odd reason to assume that they really didn't receive the Holy Spirit. The tenses just don't seem to match up with a 'prophetic' stand point.


(please note I am not one saying that people are not sealed with the Holy Spirit when they have faith)

phat8594
07-13-2014, 08:41 AM
As foudroyant had explained,
Acts 19:6 was an example of receiving the Holy Spirit using the term "Came." ". . . the Holy Spirit came on them, . . . "

It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit out theology.

tabibito
07-13-2014, 09:26 AM
I think the fire refers to his judgment in general, including his discipline over the believer

You come close - baptism of fire is the kind of baptism that Christ said he was to be baptised with in Luke 12:50; The one he spoke of in Matthew 20:22 and Mark 10:38 - 39.

Truthseeker
07-13-2014, 04:26 PM
You come close - baptism of fire is the kind of baptism that Christ said he was to be baptised with in Luke 12:50; The one he spoke of in Matthew 20:22 and Mark 10:38 - 39.Wow, that made me think I really don't understand baptism. I looked up "baptism" in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism It mentions "baptism by blood," which could be what tabibito referred to as "baptism of fire." How would "baptism" be defined based on the three Bible passages cited above? To refer to what Jesus went through as a ceremony seems wrong. I suspect most people would agree that an usual meaning of "baptism" is "a Christian rite of admission and adoption."

37818
07-13-2014, 08:31 PM
It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit our theology.

It fits mine.

". . . But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, . . ."
. . . concerning . . . περι, about, superficially regarding the Philip's preaching of the gospel. The people of Samaria were then little later confirmed in the faith (Acts 8:14-17). But Simon was told for his lack of correctly understanding the grace of salvation, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (. . . gift of God . . . John 4:10).

tabibito
07-13-2014, 08:49 PM
Wow, that made me think I really don't understand baptism. I looked up "baptism" in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism It mentions "baptism by blood," which could be what tabibito referred to as "baptism of fire." How would "baptism" be defined based on the three Bible passages cited above? To refer to what Jesus went through as a ceremony seems wrong. I suspect most people would agree that an usual meaning of "baptism" is "a Christian rite of admission and adoption."

I see... You are fully unacquainted with what is meant when a person undergoes a baptism of fire, for which any number of dictionaries will provide the etymology and meaning.

Baptism of fire
Meaning

An ordeal or martyrdom. More recently, a soldier's first experience of battle.
Origin

The term refers back to actual martyrdoms by fire. The second of these is alluded to in the Bible; for example, this version in the King James Version, Matthew 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.

the meaning most often used now is of a soldier's first experience of battle.

phat8594
07-14-2014, 08:55 AM
It fits mine.

". . . But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, . . ."
. . . concerning . . . περι, about, superficially regarding the Philip's preaching of the gospel. The people of Samaria were then little later confirmed in the faith (Acts 8:14-17). But Simon was told for his lack of correctly understanding the grace of salvation, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (. . . gift of God . . . John 4:10).


Well firstly, we were dealing with Acts 19, not Acts 8.

But in any case, 'peri' in the Greek does not mean superficially. It is a preposition to describe what the teaching was about. That being said, if you are to take your interpretation (from what I understand of it), even in Acts 8 you have to deal with people not being 'confirmed in the faith' at the time of faith or baptism in the name of Jesus -- rather it required the laying on of hands"


17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.


So, it seems that taking such an interpretation would nullify any belief in 'faith alone' -- rather it would require the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit as a confirmation of faith. Would it not? Or am I missing something about your interpretation?


Were the people not saved until the apostles laid their hands upon them?



[I should also note that 'the gift of God' in Acts 8 is not referring to John 4. There are a whole host of reasons why not...but basically it comes down to context. 'THE gift' (there is a definite article) refers to the Holy Spirit]

37818
07-16-2014, 07:25 PM
Well firstly, we were dealing with Acts 19, not Acts 8.

But in any case, 'peri' in the Greek does not mean superficially. It is a preposition to describe what the teaching was about. That being said, if you are to take your interpretation (from what I understand of it), even in Acts 8 you have to deal with people not being 'confirmed in the faith' at the time of faith or baptism in the name of Jesus -- rather it required the laying on of hands"
It's also an interesting an example of 'disciples' who believed being 'baptized' in the Spirit post belief, and by the laying on of hands...

We can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit out theology.Yes, you were making reference to 19:6. I gave another reference as to an example of the use of laying on of hands in regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.
[There is a difference between 'peri' and 'eis.' So understand there is a difference between believing about something and believing in something. your agreement is not required. This happens to be my view, maybe not yours.]






So, it seems that taking such an interpretation would nullify any belief in 'faith alone' -- rather it would require the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit as a confirmation of faith. Would it not? Or am I missing something about your interpretation?My understanding is God gives the Holy Spirit to those whom He saves. Those two examples Acts 19:6 and Acts 8:17 where the Apostles presided over this. The simple required "faith alone in Christ alone" is not denied by this, as I understand it.



Were the people not saved until the apostles laid their hands upon them?In those two examples, they were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit, which so happened to be by way of apostolic laying on of hands.




[I should also note that 'the gift of God' in Acts 8 is not referring to John 4. There are a whole host of reasons why not...but basically it comes down to context. 'THE gift' (there is a definite article) refers to the Holy Spirit]

". . . Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου], and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . " -- John 4:10.

". . . he gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου] . . . ." -- Acts 8:20.

". . . In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) " -- John 7:37-39.

". . . And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -- Revelation 22:17.

phat8594
07-18-2014, 04:06 PM
Yes, you were making reference to 19:6. I gave another reference as to an example of the use of laying on of hands in regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.


:thumb:



[There is a difference between 'peri' and 'eis.' So understand there is a difference between believing about something and believing in something. your agreement is not required. This happens to be my view, maybe not yours.]
.

You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.




My understanding is God gives the Holy Spirit to those whom He saves. Those two examples Acts 19:6 and Acts 8:17 where the Apostles presided over this. The simple required "faith alone in Christ alone" is not denied by this, as I understand it.


That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking)


14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.




". . . Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου], and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . " -- John 4:10.

". . . he gift of God [την δωρεαν του θεου] . . . ." -- Acts 8:20.

". . . In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) " -- John 7:37-39.

". . . And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -- Revelation 22:17.


I'm a little confused at the point you are trying to make here...

37818
07-18-2014, 05:01 PM
You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.The text does not say they believed in 'eis' the gospel. It says they believed Philip. And what they believed regarding Philip's preaching of the gospel, the kingdom and of Jesus Christ, was about what he had preached. They were baptized in 'eis' Jesus name. But what they had believed was Philip, not precisely in 'eis' Christ (1 John 5:1). Otherwise the Apostles would not have needed to have come. Now this is my understanding on this matter. Can you see the difference of how you are understanding it and how I am understanding it?





That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking) see 2 Corinthians 11:4. Philip, no doubt was preaching the genuine gospel. Not everyone understands things the same way. Which, unfortunately, because of sin, gives rise to false teachings. Note the error of Simon, both before and after he believed Philip (v.13).







I'm a little confused at the point you are trying to make here...It was my understanding you were making the argument that "THE gift of the Holy Spirit" was not applicable in John 4:10. It is my understanding that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is the same thing as the "gift of Christ" (Ephesians 4:7; Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12). The Holy Spirit being the water of life. Without which one is not yet saved.

foudroyant
07-20-2014, 04:56 AM
Acts 19 is an example of where belief and the 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit are noted as separate events. It seems to me that the explanations in the post assume dispensations. In other words the explanations don't necessarily explore it exegetically, but theologically (based on prior theology).


John 20 seems to me much the same. Thomas not being there seems an odd reason to assume that they really didn't receive the Holy Spirit. The tenses just don't seem to match up with a 'prophetic' stand point.


(please note I am not one saying that people are not sealed with the Holy Spirit when they have faith)

In terms of Luke specifically describing as to when the Holy Spirit was received we have:
a. Acts 2:4 - This does not apply today for this is when the NT Church began.
b. Acts 2:38 - This does not apply today for only the Jews during this time period were told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
c. Acts 8 and Acts 19 - This does not apply today for there are no living apostles today that saw the resurrected Lord.

Bruce: The sequence of the component elements in Christian initiation varies from one occasion to another in Acts. Peter's hearers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost repent, are baptized, and receive the Spirit (2:38, 41); the Samaritans evangelized by Philip believed and are baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus", but do not receive the Spirit until apostolic hands are laid on them (8:12, 14-17); Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit while they are still listening to the message and are then baptized (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).


What takes place in Acts 10 - receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith is the standard for today.

tabibito
07-20-2014, 07:25 AM
:thumb:

You are right to note that they are different words -- of course the usage is totally different. I think that you may be getting caught up in a singular word while missing the grammar of the sentence. In doing so, I believe that you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges.

If you notice the grammar of the sentence - 'about' is describing the (what of the) preaching, not the believing. In other words, the 'about' refers to what Phillip was preaching, not how they were believing.

I hope that makes it clearer...being that the greek words used here are not an issue of interpretation so much as an issue of grammar.


That's an interesting read on it. The issue of course is the significant time that would pass between believing in Jesus and being 'saved' (relatively speaking)





Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
That is a fair and reasonable translation.
However, what they actually believed is a compound {the Philip-preaching}, and it is dative, with a leading dative article τω. Thus, they believed in the Philip preaching περι/surrounding the gospel. Natural English would have the preaching centred on the gospel.
The preaching is particularised. Not just anyone's preaching, but Philip's. Implicitly, other preaching has been rejected. It could be another person's gospel of Christ or something opposed to the gospel; the sentence doesn't address that issue. So, checking the prior text - they had paid heed to Simon's teaching, but now accept the Philip-teaching.
With all that:
but when they believed in the Philip-preaching pertaining to the kingdom of God and the name of Christ, they were baptised, both men and women.

tabibito
07-20-2014, 07:44 AM
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I see no reason to believe that this sequence was established only for the first century church: accordingly, it would seem that the expected order is to receive the Holy Spirit subsequent to baptism, but it would by no means be a fixed procedure even today.

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't recall any Biblical statement to the effect that Ananias was ever appointed to apostleship, yet here Paul is baptised into the Holy Spirit at the hand of Ananias. Certainly Acts 9:10 shows only that Ananias was a disciple.

foudroyant
07-20-2014, 05:23 PM
It's not for the entire first century Church. It was for the Jews of that time period of the first century Church. There are no clear cut examples given to us where anyone else was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord and thereby immediately receive the Holy Spirit.

The text in Acts 9 is not clear as to precisely when Paul received the Holy Spirit. There are some who believe (including me) it did not take place until he was water baptized.

tabibito
07-20-2014, 05:28 PM
It's not for the entire first century Church. It was for the Jews of that time period of the first century Church. There are no clear cut examples given to us where anyone else was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord and thereby immediately receive the Holy Spirit.

The text in Acts 9 is not clear as to precisely when Paul received the Holy Spirit. There are some who believe (including me) it did not take place until he was water baptized. Re-examining the text - yes. The possibility exists. The report of what Ananias said is ambiguous.

phat8594
07-22-2014, 12:49 PM
The text does not say they believed in 'eis' the gospel. It says they believed Philip. And what they believed regarding Philip's preaching of the gospel, the kingdom and of Jesus Christ, was about what he had preached. They were baptized in 'eis' Jesus name. But what they had believed was Philip, not precisely in 'eis' Christ (1 John 5:1). Otherwise the Apostles would not have needed to have come. Now this is my understanding on this matter. Can you see the difference of how you are understanding it and how I am understanding it?


I think you are still mixing up the grammar. You are seeing the 'about' as describing how they believed rather than what Philip preached. The 'about' is discussing the Philip's preaching, not their believing.

As for your reasoning as to why the apostles came, I really feel like you are stretching the text quite a bit to make it fit that meaning. After all, how would you normally understand 'receiving the word of God', 'baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus', and 'disciples'? The text gives absolutely no reason to believe that they did not believe.

phat8594
07-22-2014, 01:03 PM
In terms of Luke specifically describing as to when the Holy Spirit was received we have:
a. Acts 2:4 - This does not apply today for this is when the NT Church began.
b. Acts 2:38 - This does not apply today for only the Jews during this time period were told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
c. Acts 8 and Acts 19 - This does not apply today for there are no living apostles today that saw the resurrected Lord.

Bruce: The sequence of the component elements in Christian initiation varies from one occasion to another in Acts. Peter's hearers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost repent, are baptized, and receive the Spirit (2:38, 41); the Samaritans evangelized by Philip believed and are baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus", but do not receive the Spirit until apostolic hands are laid on them (8:12, 14-17); Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit while they are still listening to the message and are then baptized (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).


What takes place in Acts 10 - receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith is the standard for today.



You are simply asserting with no good Biblical reason, except that it fits a particular theology. Although you give reasons, they are essentially arbitrary.

Likewise, I could state that Acts 10 doesn't apply for today for each of the reasons you gave in a,b, & c. In other words, it seems to me that you are confusing cause and effect (you see correlation as a necessity for or cause, thereof)

If we are to give reasons to exclude 3 examples in favor of a 1 (the one that is different from the rest), we should do so for Biblical reasons. Biblical reasons would be reasons given by the Bible - not simply vague facts surrounding the circumstance they may or may not have had any bearing on the matter.

I should also note that in Acts 10, the evidence is speaking in tongues and extolling God -- yet would you still see that as the 'norm' today?

tabibito
07-22-2014, 01:07 PM
I think you are still mixing up the grammar. You are seeing the 'about' as describing how they believed rather than what Philip preached. The 'about' is discussing the Philip's preaching, not their believing.
That be true.


As for your reasoning as to why the apostles came, I really feel like you are stretching the text quite a bit to make it fit that meaning. After all, how would you normally understand 'receiving the word of God', 'baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus', and 'disciples'? The text gives absolutely no reason to believe that they did not believe.
This also be true. The text seems to indicate that Philip was acting alone in his mission before the arrival of the other apostles. Reinforcement, so to speak, would be ample justification for sending other workers into the field, without any need for further reason.

foudroyant
07-22-2014, 01:59 PM
Likewise, I could state that Acts 10 doesn't apply for today for each of the reasons you gave in a,b, & c.

The New Testament Church did not begin in Acts 10 so what I wrote in "a" could not apply to these Gentiles.

To answer your question, the Bible elsewhere teaches that not all have this gift (1 Corinthians 12:30). No where else though do we see any case of anyone else other than the Jews of that time period being told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38). If you can cite an example otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

phat8594
07-22-2014, 02:54 PM
The New Testament Church did not begin in Acts 10 so what I wrote in "a" could not apply to these Gentiles.


Yet one may also argue that Acts 2 isn't describing the beginning of the New Testament Church, as much as the beginning of the time when the Spirit is poured out among God's people.

Of course, what I am trying to get across still stands. Correlation does not equate necessity or causation.

In other words, we can't go ahead and say that 'A' only happens because of 'B' simply because 'A' happened with 'B'.




To answer your question, the Bible elsewhere teaches that not all have this gift (1 Corinthians 12:30).


So then only part of the occurrence in Acts 10 is normative for today?

How can you say that an occurrence is normative but then at the same time toss out half of the occurrence?




No where else though do we see any case of anyone else other than the Jews of that time period being told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38). If you can cite an example otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'm a little lost to your point...

Acts is a historical narrative book. It seems odd to me to make so much out of single example. Now it would be one thing if the example contradicted a doctrine, but in this case it is the single example, coupled with the fact that the Bible doesn't cite an example without X trait. In other words, it doesn't pass the burden of proof test.

By that same logic we might conclude that only gentiles are baptized in the Holy Spirit 'at the time of faith'.

foudroyant
07-22-2014, 11:31 PM
1. There is far more lexical support that the NT Church started in Acts 2:4 than in Acts 10. in fact, I don't know anyone who believes it started in Acts 10 but I can cite plenty of sources that say it began in Acts 2:4.
2. Elsewhere after Acts we see the reception of the Holy Spirit not tied to water baptism or the laying on of hands but to faith/belief (Galatians 3:2-5; Ephesians 1:13). In fact, even within the book of Acts Paul believed the same thing (Acts 19:2).
3. Acts 2:38 is not a single example. The same thing is taught in Acts 22:16 where Paul (a Jew of that time period) received the forgiveness of sins in/upon his water baptism.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 01:45 AM
How can you say that an occurrence is normative but then at the same time toss out half of the occurrence? I believe that it is called special pleading.

2. Elsewhere after Acts we see the reception of the Holy Spirit not tied to water baptism or the laying on of hands but to faith/belief (Galatians 3:2-5; Ephesians 1:13). In fact, even within the book of Acts Paul believed the same thing (Acts 19:2).
Acts continues for quite some time into Paul's ministry. Baptism into the Holy Spirit was never tied to water baptism. The two are often concurrent events, but they can happen in either order, and don't necessarily happen at the same time. Critically, baptism into the Holy Spirit is not automatic - Paul's encounter with people who had been baptised into the name of Christ but had not received the Holy Spirit should be enough to make that plain.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 06:53 AM
1. It's not special pleading because elsewhere we see that not all speak in tongues while at the same time there is not one clear cut case that any Gentile was ever told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.
2. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was indeed tied to water baptism in Acts 2:38.
3. In terms of Paul's encounter wit those in Acts 19:1-7 this like Acts 8 does not occur today. There are no living apostles in the sense of Paul and the Twelve to lay hands on anyone in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Wuest: Acts 19:6 has to do with a special case where Jews had come into salvation under the Old Testament dispensation of law and now were receiving the added benefits of the Age of Grace, a case which cannot occur today (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 3:109, chapter 4, Light from the Greek on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit: The Fullness of the Spirit).

phat8594
07-23-2014, 09:05 AM
1. There is far more lexical support that the NT Church started in Acts 2:4 than in Acts 10. in fact, I don't know anyone who believes it started in Acts 10 but I can cite plenty of sources that say it began in Acts 2:4.


I wasn't making the argument that Acts 10 was the 'start of the church'. I was just pointing out that I don't think the authors intent of Acts 2 is to show some official start of 'the church'. The focus of Acts 2 is the beginning of the empowering of the Holy Spirit. The argument of Acts 10 being included in the 'beginning of the Church' would not be stated as a single start point but as a period of time during the which the church was established and grew.



2. Elsewhere after Acts we see the reception of the Holy Spirit not tied to water baptism or the laying on of hands but to faith/belief (Galatians 3:2-5; Ephesians 1:13). In fact, even within the book of Acts Paul believed the same thing (Acts 19:2).


I think we are getting off topic. I wasn't talking about water baptism, in as much as curious as to why Acts 10 is considered 'normative' or what is applicable for today, given all the other examples in Acts show a different sequence. My point was that we can't just pick an arbitrary & convenient fact about the circumstance and assume that it is causative, without the Bible showing that it is causative. That is confusing cause & effect.

As I pointed out, Acts 10 is a lone example -- and it occurs with Gentiles. Are we to assume that Acts 10, therefore, is only applicable to Gentiles? That's the only time that happens?

Also, I think you are assuming that Galations and Ephesians are referring to the same experience. Personally I don't believe being sealed with the Holy Spirit is the same as receiving the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.





3. Acts 2:38 is not a single example. The same thing is taught in Acts 22:16 where Paul (a Jew of that time period) received the forgiveness of sins in/upon his water baptism.

I was referring to Acts 10 as your single example of what you consider 'applicable' for today. Granted only partially applicable. The question is why? (from a Biblical standpoint that is)

phat8594
07-23-2014, 09:15 AM
1. It's not special pleading because elsewhere we see that not all speak in tongues while at the same time there is not one clear cut case that any Gentile was ever told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.

Is there a clear cut example of a Jew being baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith?



3. In terms of Paul's encounter wit those in Acts 19:1-7 this like Acts 8 does not occur today. There are no living apostles in the sense of Paul and the Twelve to lay hands on anyone in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Wuest: Acts 19:6 has to do with a special case where Jews had come into salvation under the Old Testament dispensation of law and now were receiving the added benefits of the Age of Grace, a case which cannot occur today (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 3:109, chapter 4, Light from the Greek on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit: The Fullness of the Spirit).

So, just curious...where in Acts 19 do you see 'the disciples' were Jews?

tabibito
07-23-2014, 11:10 AM
1. It's not special pleading because elsewhere we see that not all speak in tongues That section says that not all will exercise any specific gift of the Holy Spirit, but that each will exercise one or another of the gifts.

while at the same time there is not one clear cut case that any Gentile was ever told to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit. What? You're saying that baptism is necessary only for Jews? For whom is the promise given? Acts 2:39 explicitly answers "for all who are far off, for as many as the Lord will call." What promise does Acts 2:39 refer to? "You will receive the Holy Spirit." Is a condition imposed? Yes, two in fact - "repent" and "be baptised".


2. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was indeed tied to water baptism in Acts 2:38. Beyond the declaration that the Holy Spirit will be given provided that the person repents and is baptised into Christ, there is no connection. The normal sequence, Baptism then receiving the Holy Spirit is stated, but the sequence is not fixed absolutely. But assuredly, repentance will come before receiving the Holy Spirit.

3. In terms of Paul's encounter wit those in Acts 19:1-7 this like Acts 8 does not occur today. Acts 19:7 is hardly relevant. John's baptism is performed nowhere (as far as I know) in this time. Let's see now - Acts 19:7 PLACE Ephesus ... However, as demonstrated by Acts 8:16, PLACE Samaria, it is possible for a person to be baptised into the name of Christ without necessarily receiving the Holy Spirit.

There are no living apostles in the sense of Paul and the Twelve to lay hands on anyone in order to receive the Holy Spirit. "Paul and the twelve"?? Plenty more than 13 named apostles were proclaiming Christ in the first century church: including James, the Lord's brother, who was not numbered among the original 12. The churches stop the mouths of the prophets and refuse the apostles. There are a lot of conditions that must be met before a prophet or apostle can become active, and for either - the need to be cognisant of, and subjecting himself to, sound doctrine is imperative.


Wuest: Acts 19:6 has to do with a special case where Jews had come into salvation under the Old Testament dispensation of law and now were receiving the added benefits of the Age of Grace, a case which cannot occur today (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament 3:109, chapter 4, Light from the Greek on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit: The Fullness of the Spirit). And Wuest bases this declaration on what evidence? Or is this just a bare assertion that props up a church precept with no scripture in support? What evidence does he advance, for example, to show that the people whom Apollos had baptised in Ephesus were even Jews?

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 01:17 PM
1. And one of those gifts is speaking in tongues....but not all had this gift.
2. The Jews of that time period because they were guilty of committing "the greater sin" of delivering Christ up to Pilate (John 19:11).
The "promise" is the Holy Spirit. He is given to all at the moment of conversion.
3. Both Danker, Thayer and others teach that water baptism is for (in order to attain) the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38.
4. You know that an "apostle" has different meanings. Paul and the Twelve were of a different class.
5. Shall I cite another besides Wuest? I don't see the Scriptural evidence that supports what you say because from Romans to Revelation there is not one case where anyone receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Not one.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 01:35 PM
1. And one of those gifts is speaking in tongues....but not all had this gift. A point that is apropos of nothing - each has one or more of the gifts, but they are distributed to each strictly as God wills.

2. The Jews of that time period because they were guilty in committing the greater sin of delivering Christ up to Pilate (John 19:11).The "promise" is the Holy Spirit. He is given to all at the moment of conversion. You have a record in front of you stating that people will receive the Holy Spirit when they have repented and been baptised. AND THAT SAME RECORD DECLARES THAT THE SAME PROMISE IS MADE TO AS MANY AS GOD SHALL CALL.

3. Both Danker, Thayer and others teach that water baptism is for (in order to attain) the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. Acts 2:38 does indeed say the baptism in the name of Christ results in remission of sins.

4. You know that an "apostle" has different meanings. Paul and the Twelve were of a different class. Piffle. Not a shred of scriptural evidence has ever been advanced in support of that fairy tale. Neither can there be, none exists. Or will you try to claim that even Apollos wasn't a "real" apostle?

5. Shall I cite another besides Wuest? I don't see the Scriptural evidence that supports what you say because from Romans to Revelation there is not one case where anyone receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Not one. NO - cite the SCRIPTURAL evidence that underpins the claim. Is there one place, anywhere from Acts to Revelation that records anyone tying his sandal laces? Should I take that lack to indicate that no-one tied his sandal laces? Acts shows that the Holy Spirit can be received by the laying on of hands of the apostles. Acts also shows that the Holy Spirit can be received without anyone at all laying hands on people. Now - shall we look for a record - Romans to Revelation - which actually documents anyone AT ALL receiving the Holy Spirit by any means WHATEVER - other than as a past event? Do any of the EPISTLES actually record an actual ceremony of baptism in progress?

tabibito
07-23-2014, 01:59 PM
No occurrence of "baptised" in Corinthians provides any evidence that people were still being baptised at the time of writing.
The only occurrence of "baptised" in Galatians fails to provide any evidence that baptism is still being conducted at the time of writing.
No occurrence of "baptising" can be found outside of the gospels. Does the evidence so far available show that no baptisms were conducted after the ones recorded in the book of Acts? Using the same logic as employed by Wuest and Co, yes!
Only one occurrence of the word "baptise" appears after the book of Acts. 1 Corinthians 1:17 - Paul wasn't sent to baptise. Do we continue to use the same logic as employed by Wuest and Co here? The result would be a debacle.
"baptizes" is used only once, and in one of the gospels.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 03:23 PM
1 Peter 3:21 uses the symbol of water baptism so your assertion that "no occurrence of "baptising" can be found outside of the gospels" is false.
Paul's main work was not doing the actual baptizing. It doesn't mean that water baptizing was not taking place. In fact, according to 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16 he did perform water baptism to others.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 03:59 PM
1 Peter 3:21 uses the symbol of water baptism so your assertion that there is "no occurrence of "baptising" can be found outside of the gospels" is false.
Paul's main work was not doing the actual baptizing. It doesn't mean that water baptizing was not taking place. In fact, according to 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16 he did perform water baptism to others.
There is no symbol in 1 Peter 3:21, and - no one is actually being baptised there.
The verse declares that water baptism now saves us - no-one is actually shown to be receiving baptism.
This is not an occurrence of baptising, it is about a principle concerning baptism, and baptism is not said to be an ongoing practice in that verse. Maybe your claim about "only for the Jews" extends to baptism itself.

I have here used precisely the kind of logic that Weust and Co have used - and you are of course right - using that kind of logic guarantees a false conclusion.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 04:06 PM
It sure is a symbol:
Robertson: The saving by baptism in which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Romans 6:2-6)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/view.cgi?bk=59&ch=3

And the fact that no one is actually baptized here is a weak argument. You know it refers to water baptism and as such it refers to people being water baptized.
Get real.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 04:25 PM
It sure is a symbol:

Robertson: The saving by baptism in which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Romans 6:2-6)
http://www.studylight.org/commentari...cgi?bk=59&ch=3 In short Robertson doesn't want to admit that baptism really saves, so he calls it "symbolic". Romans 6:3-6 doesn't say people are "symbollically" saved - it says they are symbolically crucified and resurrected.



And the fact that no one is actually baptized here is a weak argument. You know it refers to water baptism and as such it refers to people being water baptized.
Get real. Sure it does - but you can't prove from that verse that people were still being baptised in water when that verse was written. I can make just the same claim about water-baptism that your commentators make about a specific procedure only being for the Jews. Their claims are every bit as ridiculous as mine - that is inevitable, the logic chain is identical.

AND, you have just demonstrated that you can see just how ridiculous their argument is - when someone else uses it.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 04:45 PM
1. Romans 6:3 was already addressed in the OP in that it refers to baptism with the Holy Spirit. See the evidence there.
2. 1 Peter 3:21 I'll cite lexicons/dictionaries while you can cite your opinion.

Please cite your knowledge of Greek (degrees, scholarly papers, etc.) so we can compare it with those that I cite.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 05:05 PM
2. 1 Peter 3:21 I'll cite lexicons/dictionaries while you can cite your opinion.
What are you saying here? "Every lexicon and dictionary entry is inspired by God and infallible" perhaps?
Until proven otherwise, they are in reality nothing more than the teachings of men and should be subjected to rigorous testing, and comparison with the scriptures.

Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
It says right there that being baptised into Christ Jesus is to have been baptised into his death.
Baptism into Christ is NOT baptism in the Holy Spirit, sunshine, it is baptism in water.

And to continue the ludicrous kind of eisegesis that you are promoting - how about trying to find the scripture ... anywhere ... that says anyone was ever baptised into the Holy Spirit. It can't be done.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 05:40 PM
The words of the Bible are inspired and these words have meanings. Don't like how these words are defined? Then hey make up your own meanings. This is the same tactic cultists resort to in order to defend their heresy.
Sad and pathetic that you resort to the same ploy as them.

You refuted no evidence I cited in the OP concerning Romans 6:3. Great job at ignoring it and just regurgitating your baseless assertion.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 06:03 PM
The words of the Bible are inspired and these words have meanings. Don't like how these words are defined? Then hey make up your own meanings. This is the same tactic cultists resort to in order to defend their heresy. Assuredly. So lets look at some of actual examples of the process:
υπακουω - don't like the fact that it means "heed/obey", just change the meaning to "believe"
πιστις - don't like the fact that in some contexts it means fidelity - just pretend that it always means "believe"
μετανοεω - don't like the fact that it means to turn aside, just pretend it's a synonym for - "regret"

Sad and pathetic that you resort to the same ploy as them.As I have already pointed out, the ploys I am resorting to are the same as those of the commentators you are so fond of. ... Have you correctly identified where those ploys are coming from, do you think?


You refuted no evidence I cited in the OP concerning Romans 6:3. Great job at ignoring it and just regurgitating your baseless assertion. I'm not the one indulging in ad hominem attacks here, sunshine.


Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
It says right there that being baptised into Christ Jesus is to have been baptised into his death.
Baptism into Christ is NOT baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is baptism in water.
How do we know this is so? Says as much right here:
Act 8:15 ... when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 06:12 PM
I know to believe is to obey. I never asserted otherwise. Your point?
Calling me sunshine (now the second time is an attack).
Acts 8:15 - they were water baptized but not yet had the baptism with the Holy Spirit. That took place through the imposition of hands.
This does not detract at all from what I wrote concerning Romans 6:3.

tabibito
07-23-2014, 06:55 PM
I know to believe is to obey. I never asserted otherwise. Your point???

Calling me sunshine (now the second time is an attack).So it is - just like telling a person to "get real" is an attack. But there is a difference between simple insult and an ad hominem attack. Declaring someone to be promoting a cult now - that is very much ad hominem, especially when you lay out nothing by way of evidence to support your claim.

Acts 8:15 - they were water baptized but not yet had the baptism with the Holy Spirit. That took place through the imposition of hands. This does not detract at all from what I wrote concerning Romans 6:3. And? Is that the only way that people receive the Holy Spirit do you think?


Please cite your knowledge of Greek (degrees, scholarly papers, etc.) so we can compare it with those that I cite. No formal qualifications in Koine Greek whatever.


1 Peter 3:21 uses the symbol of water baptism so your assertion that "no occurrence of "baptising" can be found outside of the gospels" is false. Still waiting for you to explain how this is describing an actual baptism being conducted. As I said - using the same processes that your favourite commentators use, I can declare this to be only something that was for the first century church.
You say that process is the kind of thing cultists engage in.
I agree.
So - I'll ask again, have you correctly identified the process used by your favourite commentators as a process that identifies a cultist's teaching?
While you're at it - perhaps you would like to show whether any of your favourite commentators claimed that they were able to stop sinning.
And secondly - who among them has ever exercised any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ... and which gifts?

foudroyant
07-23-2014, 06:59 PM
No formal qualifications in Koine Greek but you deny all who I cite in favor of your expertise over them.

Enough said.

later

tabibito
07-23-2014, 08:37 PM
You seem to forget that many of the early disciples were ιδιωτης - and the people who didn't know what they were talking about had more qualifications than you could poke a stick at.

Again:

have you correctly identified the process used by your favourite commentators as a process that identifies a cultist's teaching?
While you're at it - perhaps you would like to show whether any of your favourite commentators claimed that they were able to stop sinning.
And - who among them has ever exercised any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ... and which gifts?

tabibito
07-24-2014, 02:32 AM
Even if I were inclined to rely on commentators for exposition of scripture, (and proper exposition is more reliably available by learning from grammars and such how to interpret specific words and phrases) exposition moreover that is likely to be tainted by shoehorning the scripture into denominationally determined precepts. .... Why would I submit to learning from those particular commentaries that meet with your personal approval? Who appointed you the arbiter of which commentaries are acceptable as source material?
I have used commentaries in the past, and some of them conflicted with each other, which forced me to check the scriptures to determine which was right. Sometimes it was this one, at other times it was the one that was wrong last time. Often enough, the points were subtle and I had to refer to the Koine texts. These days, I skip the middle men and the aggravation, checking the Koine first. After that, I might check a commentary or three to see if I missed anything.

37818
07-26-2014, 11:19 PM
In general foudroyant has accurately presented the biblical case for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is, the receiving the Holy Spirit. While I differ with foudroyant on some points, he is overall, as I understand him, correct in his view.

The hermeneutical differences in interpretations on particular points need to be understood as to why one would, for example take one view on the term "baptism" in Romans 6 and another a different view. (I for example believe Romans 6 is talking about "water" baptism.) (compare Romans 6:3 with 1 Corinthians 10:2 as an example. . . . εβαπτισθημεν εις χριστον ιησουν . . . with . . . εις τον μωσην εβαπτισαντο . . . )

tabibito
07-26-2014, 11:45 PM
In general foudroyant has accurately presented the biblical case for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is, the receiving the Holy Spirit. While I differ with foudroyant on some points, he is overall, as I understand him, correct in his view.

The hermeneutical differences in interpretations on particular points need to be understood as to why one would, for example take one view on the term "baptism" in Romans 6 and another a different view. (I for example believe Romans 6 is talking about "water" baptism.) (compare Romans 6:3 with 1 Corinthians 10:2 as an example. . . . εβαπτισθημεν εις χριστον ιησουν . . . with . . . εις τον μωσην εβαπτισαντο . . . )


I took issue with this bit:

It's not for the entire first century Church. It was for the Jews of that time period of the first century Church. There are no clear cut examples given to us where anyone else was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord and thereby immediately receive the Holy Spirit.

Peter's declaration - in full - is
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit 39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Nothing like "for the Jews only, in the first century only" can be adduced from the BIBLE. Nor can "immediately" be adduced from the verse. If baptism in the Holy Spirit was an automatic or immediate consequence, the events detailed in Acts 8:16 would have been impossible.

tabibito
07-27-2014, 12:04 AM
(I for example believe Romans 6 is talking about "water" baptism.)
No doubt about it:
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Acts 8:15-17 makes it clear that "Baptism into Christ" is not baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Act 8:15 ... they ... prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Of course, it does take a bit of work to demonstrate that "Baptism into the name of Christ" and "Baptism into Christ" are the same thing.

foudroyant
07-27-2014, 07:38 PM
Peter's declaration - in full - is
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit 39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Nothing like "for the Jews only, in the first century only" can be adduced from the BIBLE. Nor can "immediately" be adduced from the verse. If baptism in the Holy Spirit was an automatic or immediate consequence, the events detailed in Acts 8:16 would have been impossible.

Yes, the "promise" (the Holy Spirit) is for all.
1. Mounce: Several places in the NT identify what God has promised as the end-time gift of the Holy Spirit. In Lk. 24:49 Jesus tells the disciples that he is sending "the promise of the Father" to them, and then in Acts 1:4 this thought is resumed when the disciples are instructed to remain in Jerusalem and await "the promise of the Father." In Acts 2:33 it becomes explicit that in this case "the promise of the Father" is the Holy Spirit as Luke records Peter saying in his Pentecost sermon: "having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out this that you see and hear." Paul connects the promise of the Holy Spirit to the blessing of Abraham in Gal. 3:14. Believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit of the promise (Eph. 1:13) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Promise, page 542).
2. Robertson: Concerning the "promise" in Acts 2:39:
The promise made by Jesus (#1:4) and foretold by Joel (verse #18).
http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robertact2.htm


How the Jews of that time period received Him though was first by water baptism (Acts 2:38; cf. Acts 22:16).
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2903-The-meaning-of-%CE%B5%E1%BC%B0%CF%82-in-Acts-2-38