I've been increasingly interested in the possibility that there is a Baptism in the Spirit which can be secondary to conversion as the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches assert. But I am totally lost as to how to pursue this experience. I'm coming from a Baptist background and have only been a believer for about six years, since I was 30. My church has an excellent Bible teaching leadership but no position on the Baptism in the Spirit. I have come to regard that as neglect and want to ask, seek and knock on my own.
On a recent radio show Steve helped clarify one thing for me. He said (something like) there are different temperments in the church on this issue, a truth-seeking temperment and an experience-seeking temperment; that a church like mine will attract a truth-seeking intellectual temperment where a charismatic church will tend to draw people seeking an experience; but that the trouble he ran into is he came to find out he didn't believe cessationism WAS the truth so he had to go to what was for him an uncomfortable environment to pursue this truth. He said that the Charisms don't CAUSE people to be experience chasers at the cost of truth seeking, but that it will tend to draw an abundance of those type of temperments looking for the latest experience who may be short on testing the spirits against the discipline of a sound biblical understanding.
In my initial research into the various pentacostal denominations it is a bit frustrating because at first blush it seems that it's a free-for-all world of Word of Faith-ers and all kinds of superstition and metaphysics people want to bring into the church. But I remember my low opinion of the Evangelist Christian before being saved, so I bet I have some prejudice to overcome too. And some recent testimonies I have read have spoken about how people within Charismatic churches with leaders who turned out to be personally corrupt nevertheless went through authentic experiences and were not themselves led into error.
So I write this in hopes someone with some background who feels they have gone through this event in their life could give me some advice.
How can you be sure it is the same event spoken of in Acts? Is Tongues something you can regularly go back to and be empowered by in your prayer life? One way or another I am sure God is capable of leading me on this issue. But I also see he tends to prefer to do so through other members of the Body. So I would appreciate any helpful comments. God bless...
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
--jw.
-
_Sam McNear
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:22 pm
- Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Listen to Steves teaching "Charisma and Character -"The Normative Working of the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Believer". You will get all the teaching you will need. you can find it on this website. http://thenarrowpath.com/mp3table.html
Just remember this about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer not a Peacher/ believer like in water baptism. So Jesus will do it when you are ready.
Sam McNear
Just remember this about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer not a Peacher/ believer like in water baptism. So Jesus will do it when you are ready.
Sam McNear
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Sam McNear
To know God and to make Him known - that is the most important thing!
To know God and to make Him known - that is the most important thing!
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Dear Jonathan,
No actual experience to share as I am in a similar position.
In seeking after the truth, Steve Gregg generally supports the notion that a person should stick with the doctrines which they have been taught or brought up with, but at the same time to keep an open mind to the other views that other Christians hold, till it reaches a point in time when that person is convinced of what the Bible actually says.
In this matter of baptism of Holy Spirit, I have been brought up with the view that this baptism occurs at conversion. After listening to what Steve has to say, I have to say that baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second experience also has valid Bible verses to support its view.
Of course now that both teachings appear to me to have Bible verses to support either stand, where does that leave me? Should I stick with what I grew up with and say that I am already baptised by the Spirit or should I move to the other view by seeking a baptism of the Holy Spirit? It does seem that having an experience of my own will be the only way to answer my question. I have tried praying for it but I suppose my prayers lack sincerity since I'm still undecided about what the Bible actually says.
No actual experience to share as I am in a similar position.
In seeking after the truth, Steve Gregg generally supports the notion that a person should stick with the doctrines which they have been taught or brought up with, but at the same time to keep an open mind to the other views that other Christians hold, till it reaches a point in time when that person is convinced of what the Bible actually says.
In this matter of baptism of Holy Spirit, I have been brought up with the view that this baptism occurs at conversion. After listening to what Steve has to say, I have to say that baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second experience also has valid Bible verses to support its view.
Of course now that both teachings appear to me to have Bible verses to support either stand, where does that leave me? Should I stick with what I grew up with and say that I am already baptised by the Spirit or should I move to the other view by seeking a baptism of the Holy Spirit? It does seem that having an experience of my own will be the only way to answer my question. I have tried praying for it but I suppose my prayers lack sincerity since I'm still undecided about what the Bible actually says.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
One of the problems with sharing my understanding of the baptism in the Spirit as a separate phenomenon from conversion is that it invariably makes many godly people (who have had no discernible "second work of grace") feel "left out." Some of these people, I think, are as filled with the Spirit as I profess to be. I wish I knew how to teach these things without it having such an effect on many hearers who, I believe, are not a whit behind me in their spirituality.
In attempting to keep this reaction to a minimum, I usually try to make it clear that a "separate phenomenon from" conversion does not necessarily have to occur "subsequently to" conversion, but can also occur simultaneously with it. This was the experience of Cornelius' household, and is also the experience of many godly people throughout history.
That mine came as a "second" experience is simply my testimony. I did not know this power and presence until hands were laid on me many years subsequently to my sincere profession of faith. I find biblical precedent for such subsequence of experience—but it is not the same for everyone.
A person should not assume that the baptism of the Holy Spirit has occurred in his/her life at conversion simply because it is the doctrine of his/her church. Even if the doctrine that all Christians receive this baptism at conversion were true, there is such a thing as a false or incomplete conversion. There are probably many church people who show no interest in the baptism in the Spirit because they have been taught that this occurred to them at conversion—but whose "conversions" may not have been genuine. The test should be in the spiritual life.
Also, it is a mistake to take statements that Paul made to first-century Christians, assuring them that they have all had this experience, and then to apply them automatically to ourselves. For example, many will cite passages where Paul indicates that all of his readers were baptized in the Spirit at conversion (he never really says this, but some verses come close to sounding like it)—and then they say, "See there! We have all been baptized in the Spirit at conversion!"
This makes as much sense as to take the words of Hebrews 10:32-35 and then to tell a modern congregation, "So you see, Friends, each one of you has visited the writer of Hebrews in prison, and all of you, for your faith, have joyfully endured the wrongful confiscation of all of your property."
Not everything that is true of the original readers can automatically be assumed to be the experience of later believers.
We know Paul's policy was to lay hands on his converts for the baptism in the Spirit immediately after water baptism, which occurred at the time of conversion (see Acts 19:1-6). It is quite appropriate, therefore, for him later to write to his converts and to remind them that they had received this blessing at their conversion. This doesn't prove that every church throughout history would faithfully duplicate Paul's practice, nor that every convert would experience what Paul's converts experienced. For example, Paul assumes that every one of his converts had been baptized in water (Rom.6:4/ Col.2:11-12). Can every modern pastor assume the same about those in his congregation?
Because the practice of the church has so deviated from that of the apostles, I should not be surprised if the experience of many modern Christians differs from that of Paul's converts. When I read the scriptures, I don't automatically think, "This is describing me!" What I think is, "This is describing what I need to be!"
My spiritual life, before the baptism in the Spirit, was dry, my doctrines seemed theoretical, and God's presence was a deduction from scriptural texts, not a dynamic, sensed reality. I know that many people have had conversions more dynamic than mine, and they may well have received the baptism in the Spirit as soon as they believed. Their spiritual life is not dry or unfulfilling, and never was. They would probably look at my testimony and say, "What you are calling the baptism in the Spirit was really just your genuine conversion." And they may be correct.
However, my present understanding of scripture tells me that I was saved when I determined to trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation. That occurred 12 years prior to my baptism in the Spirit. If not for the several biblical instances of the baptism occurring to certain people subsequently to their believing, I would be forced to say, "I guess I must not really have been saved before I received the baptism in the Spirit. Maybe I was just religious."
But that is not what I believe to be the case when I examine my earlier faith in retrospect. If it was the case for me, when I was preaching the gospel and leading the Baptist high school group, prior to the baptism in the Spirit, then it is, of course, a moot point at this late date. However, if this is correct, then it has ramifications for millions of believers who are now like I was then. Perhaps they are not really saved either.
I am not really resistant to this possibility, and I would not be ashamed to say that I was not saved before I received the baptism in the Spirit. I guess my problem with the theory is how many sincere Christian people would have to be judged as unconverted by this paradigm. If this is the correct way to view them, then so be it. I suppose only God knows for sure.
My advice to someone who has experienced no "second work" would be to examine your life since your conversion. Is God a dynamic reality in your life? Is it your delight to pray and to read the Word of God? Do you have a sense of God at work in your heart and in your external circumstances? In times of affliction, does God seem nearer (rather than more distant) than at other times? Do you seem to have the love of Christ involuntarily springing up as the dominant motivation for all your dealings with other people? Are you unashamed of the Gospel, and eager for opportunities to arise where you can speak of Christ to others? Are these things true—at least MOST of the time (we must allow, I think, for legitimate "dry spells")?
I am not sure I could claim the above to be a "biblical check-list," but it is a description of the changes I observed in my life after the baptism in the Spirit. Even if the Bible does not suggest that all of these things accompany the baptism in the Spirit, they are all pretty faithful measures of spiritual vitality. If I were to examine myself, and found myself to be deficient in any of these things, I would conclude that—whether I believed I had been baptised in the Spirit or not—I need more than what I now possess.
Apart from any theological position about the baptism in the Spirit, it can never be objectionable to desire and to seek greater fulness than we now possess. Paul's exhortations, "Examine your own selves, and see whether you are in the faith" (2 Cor.13:5), and "Be filled with the Holy Spirit" (Eph.5:18), were both addressed to believers. This fact should be enough to warrant our continuous self-re-examination and our redoubled efforts to apply ourselves to the pursuit of greater submission to and fulness of God's Holy Spirit.
Our explanations of the our experience matter considerably less than does the reality of the experience in our lives.
In attempting to keep this reaction to a minimum, I usually try to make it clear that a "separate phenomenon from" conversion does not necessarily have to occur "subsequently to" conversion, but can also occur simultaneously with it. This was the experience of Cornelius' household, and is also the experience of many godly people throughout history.
That mine came as a "second" experience is simply my testimony. I did not know this power and presence until hands were laid on me many years subsequently to my sincere profession of faith. I find biblical precedent for such subsequence of experience—but it is not the same for everyone.
A person should not assume that the baptism of the Holy Spirit has occurred in his/her life at conversion simply because it is the doctrine of his/her church. Even if the doctrine that all Christians receive this baptism at conversion were true, there is such a thing as a false or incomplete conversion. There are probably many church people who show no interest in the baptism in the Spirit because they have been taught that this occurred to them at conversion—but whose "conversions" may not have been genuine. The test should be in the spiritual life.
Also, it is a mistake to take statements that Paul made to first-century Christians, assuring them that they have all had this experience, and then to apply them automatically to ourselves. For example, many will cite passages where Paul indicates that all of his readers were baptized in the Spirit at conversion (he never really says this, but some verses come close to sounding like it)—and then they say, "See there! We have all been baptized in the Spirit at conversion!"
This makes as much sense as to take the words of Hebrews 10:32-35 and then to tell a modern congregation, "So you see, Friends, each one of you has visited the writer of Hebrews in prison, and all of you, for your faith, have joyfully endured the wrongful confiscation of all of your property."
Not everything that is true of the original readers can automatically be assumed to be the experience of later believers.
We know Paul's policy was to lay hands on his converts for the baptism in the Spirit immediately after water baptism, which occurred at the time of conversion (see Acts 19:1-6). It is quite appropriate, therefore, for him later to write to his converts and to remind them that they had received this blessing at their conversion. This doesn't prove that every church throughout history would faithfully duplicate Paul's practice, nor that every convert would experience what Paul's converts experienced. For example, Paul assumes that every one of his converts had been baptized in water (Rom.6:4/ Col.2:11-12). Can every modern pastor assume the same about those in his congregation?
Because the practice of the church has so deviated from that of the apostles, I should not be surprised if the experience of many modern Christians differs from that of Paul's converts. When I read the scriptures, I don't automatically think, "This is describing me!" What I think is, "This is describing what I need to be!"
My spiritual life, before the baptism in the Spirit, was dry, my doctrines seemed theoretical, and God's presence was a deduction from scriptural texts, not a dynamic, sensed reality. I know that many people have had conversions more dynamic than mine, and they may well have received the baptism in the Spirit as soon as they believed. Their spiritual life is not dry or unfulfilling, and never was. They would probably look at my testimony and say, "What you are calling the baptism in the Spirit was really just your genuine conversion." And they may be correct.
However, my present understanding of scripture tells me that I was saved when I determined to trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation. That occurred 12 years prior to my baptism in the Spirit. If not for the several biblical instances of the baptism occurring to certain people subsequently to their believing, I would be forced to say, "I guess I must not really have been saved before I received the baptism in the Spirit. Maybe I was just religious."
But that is not what I believe to be the case when I examine my earlier faith in retrospect. If it was the case for me, when I was preaching the gospel and leading the Baptist high school group, prior to the baptism in the Spirit, then it is, of course, a moot point at this late date. However, if this is correct, then it has ramifications for millions of believers who are now like I was then. Perhaps they are not really saved either.
I am not really resistant to this possibility, and I would not be ashamed to say that I was not saved before I received the baptism in the Spirit. I guess my problem with the theory is how many sincere Christian people would have to be judged as unconverted by this paradigm. If this is the correct way to view them, then so be it. I suppose only God knows for sure.
My advice to someone who has experienced no "second work" would be to examine your life since your conversion. Is God a dynamic reality in your life? Is it your delight to pray and to read the Word of God? Do you have a sense of God at work in your heart and in your external circumstances? In times of affliction, does God seem nearer (rather than more distant) than at other times? Do you seem to have the love of Christ involuntarily springing up as the dominant motivation for all your dealings with other people? Are you unashamed of the Gospel, and eager for opportunities to arise where you can speak of Christ to others? Are these things true—at least MOST of the time (we must allow, I think, for legitimate "dry spells")?
I am not sure I could claim the above to be a "biblical check-list," but it is a description of the changes I observed in my life after the baptism in the Spirit. Even if the Bible does not suggest that all of these things accompany the baptism in the Spirit, they are all pretty faithful measures of spiritual vitality. If I were to examine myself, and found myself to be deficient in any of these things, I would conclude that—whether I believed I had been baptised in the Spirit or not—I need more than what I now possess.
Apart from any theological position about the baptism in the Spirit, it can never be objectionable to desire and to seek greater fulness than we now possess. Paul's exhortations, "Examine your own selves, and see whether you are in the faith" (2 Cor.13:5), and "Be filled with the Holy Spirit" (Eph.5:18), were both addressed to believers. This fact should be enough to warrant our continuous self-re-examination and our redoubled efforts to apply ourselves to the pursuit of greater submission to and fulness of God's Holy Spirit.
Our explanations of the our experience matter considerably less than does the reality of the experience in our lives.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
I am puzzled by your response to Benjamin's question. Ephesians 5:18 is an exortation for Christians to do something which, as I understand your response, you equate with being baptized with the spirit. I understand the baptism by (with, in?) the spirit to be the action of God. Why the exhortation by Paul for the Christian to act if it is not within our ability to accomplish?
I am reminded of the practice of the Calvinists to require a conversion experience before accepting a person into the Church and how many struggled to come up with one, people who were sincerely seeking God, but found themselves in great despair. Finally many realized they could simply believe God and trust and follow Jesus.
Paul informs us there is but "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism". If water baptism and baptism by (in?) the Spirit are not two aspects of the same thing (at least normatively), how could he say this? If there are actually two separate baptisms ("seperate phenomenon") what confidence do we have in the rest of his statement?
Do you mean to indicate that Paul's exhortation to "examine yourselves to see if you are of the faith" would be answered by an experience? I would be inclined to go to 1 John for the test.
In Christ, Homer
I am puzzled by your response to Benjamin's question. Ephesians 5:18 is an exortation for Christians to do something which, as I understand your response, you equate with being baptized with the spirit. I understand the baptism by (with, in?) the spirit to be the action of God. Why the exhortation by Paul for the Christian to act if it is not within our ability to accomplish?
I am reminded of the practice of the Calvinists to require a conversion experience before accepting a person into the Church and how many struggled to come up with one, people who were sincerely seeking God, but found themselves in great despair. Finally many realized they could simply believe God and trust and follow Jesus.
Paul informs us there is but "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism". If water baptism and baptism by (in?) the Spirit are not two aspects of the same thing (at least normatively), how could he say this? If there are actually two separate baptisms ("seperate phenomenon") what confidence do we have in the rest of his statement?
Do you mean to indicate that Paul's exhortation to "examine yourselves to see if you are of the faith" would be answered by an experience? I would be inclined to go to 1 John for the test.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hi Homer,
I think that Ephesians 5:18 is an exhortation to believers (who, in this case, had already been baptized in the Spirit) to maintain a Spirit-filled life. This was to be done in the manner suggested in the following verses (19-21). These things are not only within our ability, but they are our responsibility to do.
Though the baptism in the Spirit is the in-filling of the Spirit (comp. Acts 1:5 with 2:4), it is not an event that automatically guarantees that the recipient will always remain filled with the Spirit...or else Paul would have no reason to exhort us to be being filled with the Spirit as an on-going obligation.
Paul's statement about "one baptism" is, in my judgment, greatly misunderstood by most non-charismatics. I think he is definitely talking about water baptism here, but he is not claiming that the believer can expect no other experiences that, in other senses, might be called "baptisms." Jesus Himself distinguished between water baptism and the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and also spoke of yet a third baptism that the sons of Zebedee would share with Him—apparently a baptism in suffering (Mark 10:39). Thus Jesus spoke of at least three "baptisms" that some of His disciples could expect to experience. When Paul later spoke of "one baptism," I do not think that he intended to contradict Jesus.
Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:5 is, I think, made clearer by reference to another passage, where the same concern (unity of the brethren) is being discussed. In 1 Corinthians 1:11-15, Paul is expressing his chagrin that the church in Corinth was dividing into factions under separate hero-leaders. Some were saying, "I am of Paul"...or "I am of Apollos"...or "I am of Cephas..."
In bringing correction and appealing for unity (as he also was doing in Ephesians 4), Paul here also makes reference to the "one baptism" that is the basis of Christian unity. The way he actually argues his point is as follows:
"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name..." (vv.13-14).
In other words, divisions are inexcusable, since we were all baptized (in water) into the same Christ (i.e., in the name of Christ). There are not multiple names into which various Christians were baptized. No one was baptized in the name of Luther, or Calvin, or Arminius, or Wesley. There is one name into which all Christians were baptized—that of Christ—which fact testifies to the fact that we have "one Lord," and are of "one body."
This is what Paul, I believe, is saying in Ephesians 4 as well. "There is...one baptism," is not a statement about how many experiences in the Christian life may legitimately be called some kind of "baptism" (why contradict Jesus on this—and how would such an affirmation serve Paul's purpose of appealing for unity in the passage?). What he is saying certainly must be that all Christians, when baptized at conversion, were baptized into the same name, Jesus Christ—not various names of different teachers.
You asked: "Do you mean to indicate that Paul's exhortation to 'examine yourselves to see if you are of the faith' would be answered by an experience?"
In part, yes, but not entirely. You said you would be more inclined to look to 1 John for the test, but the test in 1 John of genuine conversion has four parts:
1) confession of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, come in the flesh (2:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1)
2) righteous behavior (2:3-5; 3:6-10; 5:3, 18)
3) love (2:10-11; 3:10, 14-16, 18-19; 4:7-8, 12, 16-21; 5:1)
4) the evident presence of the Holy Spirit (3:24; 4:13; 5:6-10)
I suppose that you are thinking of the first two parts only when you say you prefer to go to 1 John for the test. I would look for all four parts. Good doctrine and good behavior are certainly indispensable parts of the test, but love and the sensed presence of the Holy Spirit are equally so. When I suggest that it is good for Christians to examine themselves, this includes all four parts of the normative Christian life.
The principal evidence of fulness of the Holy Spirit is love (the third part of the test). Another is power (Acts 1:8), and yet another is the inner "witness" (Rom.8:16/ 1 John 5:10). These are the experiential elements that I would encouragr anyone to look for in order to discern whether they are or are not filled with the Holy Spirit.
This shouldn't be puzzling. I hope none will deny that there is an experiential element in normative Christianity (Rom.5:1-5/Col.1:4-6/ 1 Thess.1:5/ 2 Pet.1:2-4). I don't see what would be strange in my encouraging believers to check for this element in their Christian lives, as well as the other elements.
I think that Ephesians 5:18 is an exhortation to believers (who, in this case, had already been baptized in the Spirit) to maintain a Spirit-filled life. This was to be done in the manner suggested in the following verses (19-21). These things are not only within our ability, but they are our responsibility to do.
Though the baptism in the Spirit is the in-filling of the Spirit (comp. Acts 1:5 with 2:4), it is not an event that automatically guarantees that the recipient will always remain filled with the Spirit...or else Paul would have no reason to exhort us to be being filled with the Spirit as an on-going obligation.
Paul's statement about "one baptism" is, in my judgment, greatly misunderstood by most non-charismatics. I think he is definitely talking about water baptism here, but he is not claiming that the believer can expect no other experiences that, in other senses, might be called "baptisms." Jesus Himself distinguished between water baptism and the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and also spoke of yet a third baptism that the sons of Zebedee would share with Him—apparently a baptism in suffering (Mark 10:39). Thus Jesus spoke of at least three "baptisms" that some of His disciples could expect to experience. When Paul later spoke of "one baptism," I do not think that he intended to contradict Jesus.
Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:5 is, I think, made clearer by reference to another passage, where the same concern (unity of the brethren) is being discussed. In 1 Corinthians 1:11-15, Paul is expressing his chagrin that the church in Corinth was dividing into factions under separate hero-leaders. Some were saying, "I am of Paul"...or "I am of Apollos"...or "I am of Cephas..."
In bringing correction and appealing for unity (as he also was doing in Ephesians 4), Paul here also makes reference to the "one baptism" that is the basis of Christian unity. The way he actually argues his point is as follows:
"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name..." (vv.13-14).
In other words, divisions are inexcusable, since we were all baptized (in water) into the same Christ (i.e., in the name of Christ). There are not multiple names into which various Christians were baptized. No one was baptized in the name of Luther, or Calvin, or Arminius, or Wesley. There is one name into which all Christians were baptized—that of Christ—which fact testifies to the fact that we have "one Lord," and are of "one body."
This is what Paul, I believe, is saying in Ephesians 4 as well. "There is...one baptism," is not a statement about how many experiences in the Christian life may legitimately be called some kind of "baptism" (why contradict Jesus on this—and how would such an affirmation serve Paul's purpose of appealing for unity in the passage?). What he is saying certainly must be that all Christians, when baptized at conversion, were baptized into the same name, Jesus Christ—not various names of different teachers.
You asked: "Do you mean to indicate that Paul's exhortation to 'examine yourselves to see if you are of the faith' would be answered by an experience?"
In part, yes, but not entirely. You said you would be more inclined to look to 1 John for the test, but the test in 1 John of genuine conversion has four parts:
1) confession of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, come in the flesh (2:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1)
2) righteous behavior (2:3-5; 3:6-10; 5:3, 18)
3) love (2:10-11; 3:10, 14-16, 18-19; 4:7-8, 12, 16-21; 5:1)
4) the evident presence of the Holy Spirit (3:24; 4:13; 5:6-10)
I suppose that you are thinking of the first two parts only when you say you prefer to go to 1 John for the test. I would look for all four parts. Good doctrine and good behavior are certainly indispensable parts of the test, but love and the sensed presence of the Holy Spirit are equally so. When I suggest that it is good for Christians to examine themselves, this includes all four parts of the normative Christian life.
The principal evidence of fulness of the Holy Spirit is love (the third part of the test). Another is power (Acts 1:8), and yet another is the inner "witness" (Rom.8:16/ 1 John 5:10). These are the experiential elements that I would encouragr anyone to look for in order to discern whether they are or are not filled with the Holy Spirit.
This shouldn't be puzzling. I hope none will deny that there is an experiential element in normative Christianity (Rom.5:1-5/Col.1:4-6/ 1 Thess.1:5/ 2 Pet.1:2-4). I don't see what would be strange in my encouraging believers to check for this element in their Christian lives, as well as the other elements.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Hi Steve,
Forgive me if my questions sound absurd (I'm not too sure how to phrase them). I'm still trying to understand this matter although some might say I'm just being "intellectual".
My quesstion is: can a Christian be filled with the Spirit without being baptised in the Spirit? Considering the way you interpret Eph 5:18-21 (verse 19-21 explains what being Spirit filled is), would these responsibilities still remain "do-able", if I am not yet baptised by the Spirit (i.e. lack the power of the Spirit to obey)? Or if those aspects are already real in my life, would it mean that I have been baptised in the Spirit unknowingly?
My trouble is that there are still days when I wish I spoke in tongues... at least then I would know that I have received the Spirit baptism. Certainly that would make it easier to convince the more-Charismatic-minded Christians around me. But I know I should not worry about their judgement of me, I need to judge myself in this matter. The guidelines you have mentioned in your earlier reply have been helpful.
Forgive me if my questions sound absurd (I'm not too sure how to phrase them). I'm still trying to understand this matter although some might say I'm just being "intellectual".
- And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Eph 5:18-21 (ESV)
My quesstion is: can a Christian be filled with the Spirit without being baptised in the Spirit? Considering the way you interpret Eph 5:18-21 (verse 19-21 explains what being Spirit filled is), would these responsibilities still remain "do-able", if I am not yet baptised by the Spirit (i.e. lack the power of the Spirit to obey)? Or if those aspects are already real in my life, would it mean that I have been baptised in the Spirit unknowingly?
My trouble is that there are still days when I wish I spoke in tongues... at least then I would know that I have received the Spirit baptism. Certainly that would make it easier to convince the more-Charismatic-minded Christians around me. But I know I should not worry about their judgement of me, I need to judge myself in this matter. The guidelines you have mentioned in your earlier reply have been helpful.
- Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Col 3:16-17 (ESV)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Ben,
It is a shame that charismatic people and Pentecostals have placed such an emphasis on the matter of speaking with tongues, resulting in people like yourself feeling that you are missing something, even though you have many other (and more important) evidences of the fulness of the Spirit. Though I do speak with tongues now, I did not do so for some time after my own experience of the baptism in the Spirit, so I have never been inclined to judge another's experience on this criterion either.
In fact, I don't think that speaking in tongues always proves a person to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Certain occult religions know the phenomenon of tongues-speaking, and even many Pentecostals who speak with tongues live lives that prove them to be carnal, and not filled with the Spirit of God. I doubt that the genuine gift of tongues is given prior to or without the baptism, or filling, of the Holy Spirit—but it is obvious that counterfeit practices can masquerade as the real gift of tongues.
Some of what you ask is not within my range of knowledge to answer. My educated guess would be that, if you are fulfilling the things Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:19-21, you would have every reason to deduce that you are a Spirit-filled believer, whether you recall a time since your conversion when you were separately filled, or not.
It is a shame that charismatic people and Pentecostals have placed such an emphasis on the matter of speaking with tongues, resulting in people like yourself feeling that you are missing something, even though you have many other (and more important) evidences of the fulness of the Spirit. Though I do speak with tongues now, I did not do so for some time after my own experience of the baptism in the Spirit, so I have never been inclined to judge another's experience on this criterion either.
In fact, I don't think that speaking in tongues always proves a person to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Certain occult religions know the phenomenon of tongues-speaking, and even many Pentecostals who speak with tongues live lives that prove them to be carnal, and not filled with the Spirit of God. I doubt that the genuine gift of tongues is given prior to or without the baptism, or filling, of the Holy Spirit—but it is obvious that counterfeit practices can masquerade as the real gift of tongues.
Some of what you ask is not within my range of knowledge to answer. My educated guess would be that, if you are fulfilling the things Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:19-21, you would have every reason to deduce that you are a Spirit-filled believer, whether you recall a time since your conversion when you were separately filled, or not.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
To Jonathan
Hello Jonathan,
I came from a non-Christian background. I prayed the prayer of faith while on the verge of death in an ambulance. I became a born again Christian. Three months, after spending ten days in ICU, I went to a church service. I had been reading a book on faith by a well known author named Kenneth Hagin. At the service I heard people speak in tongues. A week later I went to another service. I heard tongues and interpretation. Then, a close friend told me that she also could speak in tongues. From my point of view, at the time, I felt as though I were being cheated. I knew it was in the book of Acts. That week, I hounded a family member to take me to a service so that I could be prayed for to recieve the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The family member suggested that we pray right then and there. I could not longer bear waiting another minute. I fell to my knees and asked God to fill me with the Holy Spirit. I began to thank Him, in faith, that I had received. I continued to thank Him for filling me with the Holy Spirit. Thoughts began to run through my mind that I was barely a new Christian, and I had no idea what it would be like to speak in tongues. I decided that the thoughts must be from the devil. So, I began to thank God more tenaciously. I refused to believe that my prayer had not been answered. Suddenly, I felt something rise up on the inside. When it reached my mouth the words formed, in my mouth, and in my mind, "la ba, la ba, la ba da ka seeki". It came like a wave. I began to speak from my heart in this new language. For six months, as I prayed each day, more language came.
Fortunately, I did not have any sort of church background. I saw people speak in tongues. I read about tongues in the Book of Acts. And, I felt like I was being cheated since other Christians had recieved the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and I had not. Unlike many other people, this propelled me forward.
I came from a non-Christian background. I prayed the prayer of faith while on the verge of death in an ambulance. I became a born again Christian. Three months, after spending ten days in ICU, I went to a church service. I had been reading a book on faith by a well known author named Kenneth Hagin. At the service I heard people speak in tongues. A week later I went to another service. I heard tongues and interpretation. Then, a close friend told me that she also could speak in tongues. From my point of view, at the time, I felt as though I were being cheated. I knew it was in the book of Acts. That week, I hounded a family member to take me to a service so that I could be prayed for to recieve the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The family member suggested that we pray right then and there. I could not longer bear waiting another minute. I fell to my knees and asked God to fill me with the Holy Spirit. I began to thank Him, in faith, that I had received. I continued to thank Him for filling me with the Holy Spirit. Thoughts began to run through my mind that I was barely a new Christian, and I had no idea what it would be like to speak in tongues. I decided that the thoughts must be from the devil. So, I began to thank God more tenaciously. I refused to believe that my prayer had not been answered. Suddenly, I felt something rise up on the inside. When it reached my mouth the words formed, in my mouth, and in my mind, "la ba, la ba, la ba da ka seeki". It came like a wave. I began to speak from my heart in this new language. For six months, as I prayed each day, more language came.
Fortunately, I did not have any sort of church background. I saw people speak in tongues. I read about tongues in the Book of Acts. And, I felt like I was being cheated since other Christians had recieved the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and I had not. Unlike many other people, this propelled me forward.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve,
Do you think that the "one" baptism could be refering to the baptism into Christ? Where we are brought out of darkness into light, out of satans kingdom into God's? Since a person who is born again, if they apostate, they can never be brought back. Wouldnt this be the logical bapstism that Paul was talking of???
SoaringEagle
Do you think that the "one" baptism could be refering to the baptism into Christ? Where we are brought out of darkness into light, out of satans kingdom into God's? Since a person who is born again, if they apostate, they can never be brought back. Wouldnt this be the logical bapstism that Paul was talking of???
SoaringEagle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: