Holy Spirit

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Matthew 7:16 NM By their deeds you will know them. Does a man gather grapes from thorns or figs from briars?”

We know that a person's attitude and actions change as a result of their baptism. Nobody has to give you more proof than that they have changed their life and live by the will of God and no longer live by self-will.

People can reform and improve their lives without being baptised with the Spirit. The baptism with the Spirit is not for reformation of one's life. It is power for service. Those baptised with the Spirit have power to preach the gospel and to manifest the gifts of the Spirit to build up the body of Christ. It is not for personal sancification, but for service to others. Many modern Charismatics have misunderstood the Holy Spirit and have internalised him with the attitude of "look what is happening to me!" instead of seeing people being convicted of sin though their sharing of the Gospel, which rarely happens, people being healed, and demons cast out which is also rare as Holy Spirit power directed toward the unconverted.

 

[Guojing]

The Biblical standard for validation is agreement from two or three witnesses. The three descriptions of people being baptised with Spirit involved them speaking with tongues. Therefore the Bible validates the normal outflow of the baptism with the Spirit is the speaking of tongues.

One clear difference between how he interprets scripture, and you is that you assume that, if the Holy spirit works this way at the time period of Acts of the Apostles, then that is how he is also going to work TODAY.

While for him, he is willing to consider that the Holy Spirit can work one way with believers at that time period, but works in a different way TODAY.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One clear difference between how he interprets scripture, and you is that you assume that, if the Holy spirit works this way at the time period of Acts of the Apostles, then that is how he is also going to work TODAY.

While for him, he is willing to consider that the Holy Spirit can work one way with believers at that time period, but works in a different way TODAY.

If Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, then the Holy Spirit is the same. The written Scriptures provide the whole truth, and there is a prohibition in Proverbs 30 attached to adding anything to the written Scripture that is not already there, otherwise the person who adds to the written Scriptures is seen as a liar.

As I have already stated, if the Holy Spirit intends to baptise believers in a different way that is shown in the written Scriptural examples, then He would have included examples where people were baptised with the Spirit without tongues and/or prophecy. But there aren't any. Even at times in the old Testament, when the power of the Holy Spirit was present, people broke into prophecy. This happened to the ones Saul sent to capture David, and when Saul himself went, he broke into prophecy himself. When Saul was anointed king, the Holy Spirit came upon him and he prophesied. Hence there are no examples anywhere in Scripture where the Holy Spirit came upon a person or someone was baptised with the Spirit and there was no outflow.

Therefore, the three examples of the baptism with the Spirit that we see in Acts, are there for a specific reason: To show clearly what happens when believers are baptised with the Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit works differently today is actually adding to written Scripture something that is not there, and according to Proverbs 30:5-6, you could be accused of lying and misrepresenting the baptism with the Spirit by giving false teaching that is not contained in God's Word.

 

[Guojing]

If Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, then the Holy Spirit is the same. The written Scriptures provide the whole truth, and there is a prohibition in Proverbs 30 attached to adding anything to the written Scripture that is not already there, otherwise the person who adds to the written Scriptures is seen as a liar.

That widely misapplied verse from Hebrews refer to the characteristics of God, not his actions. Jesus was crucified once yesterday, he is not going to be crucified today, nor tomorrow.

Therefore, the three examples of the baptism with the Spirit that we see in Acts, are there for a specific reason: To show clearly what happens when believers are baptised with the Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit works differently today is actually adding to written Scripture something that is not there, and according to Proverbs 30:5-6, you could be accused of lying and misrepresenting the baptism with the Spirit by giving false teaching that is not contained in God's Word.

Well, even if people present you scripture that indicated that he did work differently, you will not be convinced, so I won't do that.

But I was just trying to reconcile your thinking with his thinking, that was my main objective of replying to your post.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That widely misapplied verse from Hebrews refer to the characteristics of God, not his actions. Jesus was crucified once yesterday, he is not going to be crucified today, nor tomorrow.



Well, even if people present you scripture that indicated that he did work differently, you will not be convinced, so I won't do that.

But I was just trying to reconcile your thinking with his thinking, that was my main objective of replying to your post.

But you are not reconciling my thinking to His thinking, because there are no written Scriptures that say clearly that people are baptised with the Holy Spirit without tongues. If there are no written Scriptures, then Jesus never thought that. But what we have in three clear examples is that Jesus definitely thinks that the baptism with the Spirit does come with the outflow of tongues. What is true however is that you are trying to reconcile my thinking to YOUR thinking, and taking the Lord's name in vain by attaching what you are trying to say is His thinking with your own personal view.

 

[Guojing]

But you are not reconciling my thinking to His thinking, because there are no written Scriptures that say clearly that people are baptised with the Holy Spirit without tongues. If there are no written Scriptures, then Jesus never thought that. But what we have in three clear examples is that Jesus definitely thinks that the baptism with the Spirit does come with the outflow of tongues. What is true however is that you are trying to reconcile my thinking to YOUR thinking, and taking the Lord's name in vain by attaching what you are trying to say is His thinking with your own personal view.

Using Acts is problematic because the Holy Spirit was dealing with the nation of Israel at the beginning, and started transitioning to gentiles in the middle.

Jews always require signs to believe, so it makes perfect sense that when all of them are baptized, they were speaking in tongues, your so called 3 clear examples all happened when the Holy Spirit was dealing with the nation of Israel.

But as I said, I know you won't agree with this kind of scripture interpretation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Using Acts is problematic because the Holy Spirit was dealing with the nation of Israel at the beginning, and started transitioning to gentiles in the middle.

Jews always require signs to believe, so it makes perfect sense that when all of them are baptized, they were speaking in tongues, your so called 3 clear examples all happened when the Holy Spirit was dealing with the nation of Israel.

But as I said, I know you won't agree with this kind of scripture interpretation.

The events in Acts 10 and Acts 19 happened to Gentiles, not Jews, and they happened outside Jerusalem. The Acts 19 event happened in Ephesus. Also, God had stopped dealing with Israel when the Temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom signalling the end of the Old Covenant.

No, I won't accept your interpretation of Scripture when you twist it out of context to suit your faulty premise.

 

[Guojing]

Also, God had stopped dealing with Israel when the Temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom signalling the end of the Old Covenant

No, I won't accept your interpretation of Scripture when you twist it out of context to suit your faulty premise.

When you disagree with my interpretation of scripture, you claimed I am either

1. lying and giving false teaching that is not contained in God's Word.
2. taking the Lord's name in vain
3. twisting it out of context.

You cannot have a discussion about Christian doctrine with others cordially, without resorting to all these unnecessary terms?

You never thought maybe your own interpretation might also be the same, just that others who disagree with you are matured enough not to use the same terms that you are using?

 

[rturner76]

People can reform and improve their lives without being baptised with the Spirit. The baptism with the Spirit is not for reformation of one's life. It is power for service. Those baptised with the Spirit have power to preach the gospel and to manifest the gifts of the Spirit to build up the body of Christ. It is not for personal sancification, but for service to others. Many modern Charismatics have misunderstood the Holy Spirit and have internalised him with the attitude of "look what is happening to me!" instead of seeing people being convicted of sin though their sharing of the Gospel, which rarely happens, people being healed, and demons cast out which is also rare as Holy Spirit power directed toward the unconverted.

Let's just clarify....Are you saying there is a second baptism? When we are baptised in the name of the Father. Son, and Holy Spirit, the part that says we are baptized in the Holy Spirit is somehow not valid and we need a second baptism only in the name of the Holy Spirit? Please tell my why our water baptism in the name of the trinity is not sufficient using the Bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is being filled with the Holy Spirit a specific experience? Is it a one time thing? Can it be different sorts of experiences?

In the 2nd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we read that St. Peter was filled with the Spirit and then preached his sermon. What does this meaning? Was Peter filled this one time, and forever? Or does this speak of the way the Spirit worked in Peter in this particular moment--to preach the sermon which he gave?

St. Paul, writing to those who already believe, says, "Do not be drunk with wine ... be filled with the Spirit", which indicates an imperative. Something to be sought in our day-to-day life as Christians.

Without being too dogmatic about it, and desiring to do more, I would give a tentative argument thus: To be filled with the Spirit is an imperative which we who have the Spirit, by the grace of God according to the promise of the Gospel, ought to seek. Day-to-day, and is on part with walking in the Spirit. Part of what, broadly speaking, is often called sanctification, or to use another term, renovation. Renovation (the preferred terminology within Lutheranism) refers to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it is the ongoing renewal as the Divine Image is being restored in us. It's part of the Spirit's onging work of Theosis, of conforming us to Christ, conforming us to God. Thus the imperative is to walk in the Spirit, be filled with the Spirit--to seek, to work, to cooperate with God's grace. Not for our justification, but as the ongoing reality of faith working itself out through love, the dying of the old man and the rising and renewing of the new man.

We should always seek to be filled with the Spirit. It's not a one time experience. It's not a singular moment or event--it is the call of Christian discipleship to abide, to follow, and to obey.

The gift and promise of the Spirit is mine already, it is the promise of the Holy Gospel, granted to me through faith according to God's merciful works: Word and Sacrament. Thus I, by my precious Baptism by which God has made me His own in accordance with His own word and promise, have received the Holy Spirit; for this is the promise of God's word. For here God's decree, His word, His promise--His very sacred pledge--is made; that which has gone down into the water is dead, and what comes up is new, for He speaks His Name over me: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What God has done already is sufficient, I do not need to seek further experiences, nor seek things outside of the Gospel for validation that I am His. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father--and I am His.

But now that I am His I am to die. I am to abide, to follow, to obey. That the old man continue to die; and the new man renewed day by day. To seek to live and walk and abide by the Holy Spirit, who keeps me and sanctifies me by grace, in Word and Sacrament, that I might be made into the image of Christ, and in that future glorious day, become what God is working in me to be.

For in love He knew me, by grace He chose me, by His word He has called me, and by His Name He has washed me.

-CryptoLutheran