What is baptism of the Holy Spirit?

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of Jesus Christ; it is the new birth that brings forgiveness of sins and justification through the gift of faith. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is baptism by the Holy Spirit, making true God's promise of redemption, conversion, sanctification and perseverance. While being conditional for salvation, the baptism of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit also is the 'first down-payment' or Gaurantee, and seal, upon, and of, eternal salvation.

 

I therefore without hesitation reject for its slandering audacity and nonsensicalness, this statement about the matter,
"Many people have been "born again" and have the Holy Spirit working in their lives, but have never received the baptism in the Holy Ghost which equips them for service and gives them the power needed to overcome in Christ."

This is saying the baptism by the Holy Spirit makes of no effect the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It actually is a blasphemous claim.

 

The second big fault with this opinion of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is that it conceits Apostolic gifts, signs and graces for (false) discipleship.

 

Each new generation of lying tongue-speakers and bogus wonder-performers is as stupid as all their generations of before. Will they never learn that their fraudulence has long since been exposed and that they cannot fool the people anymore except those who love the lie?

 

TaliOrlando,

bmerr here. There are only three occurrences of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit in the NT. Two are recorded (Acts 2 with the apostles, and Acts 10 with the household of Cornelius), and one is implied (the apostle Paul).

In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles, and equipped them to carry out their duties as apostles. Tongues, prophecy, healing, etc, etc, were all available to the apostles. They had the authority to lay hands on others and impart spiritual gifts to them (Acts 8:18). Those to whom these gifts were given were not able to pass them on.

In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household to convince the six brethren of the circumcision that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached unto them as well as Jews. Cornelius and Co. were not equipped for service as apostles as a result of this outpouring of the Spirit. Same element as the apostles in Acts 2, different purpose.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit does not occur today.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Your argument could use more proof in 3 key areas.

#1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit does not occur today
#2. Cornelius and family were NOT equipped for service in the body of Christ even AFTER they received the Holy Spirit.
#3. The 1Cor 12 method of distributing the gifts of the Holy Spirit is not applied to "each person" but only to the Apostles and anyone they gave the gifts to...

 

GE:

I fully agree with you, the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit was the once for all prophecy fulfilling event of the Fiftieth Day of Pentecost.

But the baptism of Jesus Christ - and the days for it were a-coming in John the baptist's day (without which no one is saved that is saved, Apostles included) - would be with the "fire and power" of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself promised the Holy Spirit and that He would do the full range of Divine acts in the matter of salvation for, and with, and in, each redeemed. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is how Jesus would fulfill His assurance: "I will be with you always even unto the end". There is no such thing as a Christian that is not born again by, the Holy Spirit -- through the baptism of, Jesus Christ -- the baptism with, the Holy Spirit.
I don't speak of Apostolic prerogatives.

 

No one today who receives Christ as Savior does not instantaneously receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is instantly imparted. Read this with that understanding:

"......whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."

When I received Christ as Savior the Spirit descended, baptizing me, immersing me, in His never-ending care. He "came alongside" to assure, comfort, and sustain me.

Holy Spirit baptism is not a second and subsequent event. Some are instantly transformed into "newness of life" at the moment they are born again. Others, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit, see their lives transformed over time. In the latter case He was always there, and He never departs. God sustains us; we do not sustain God. Greater is He that is in me than He that is in the world. No abominal sin is able to evict the Holy Spirit, the Jesus in me, the God with us. Beat up on our fellowship, yes, but the born-again Believer knows and applies 1 John 1:9 if he / she falters.

These truths are misinterpreted and distorted in several denominations and non-denominational churches. Not all, mind you! SOME.


:godisgood: <------ and His Mercy endureth forever.

 

Baptism of Holy Spirit means the Being Born Again by Water and Holy Spirit. the Water here is the Words of God which have the capacity of cleansing power. The Word of God can cleanse us from the sins.

If anyone say that one should have the Baptism by Holy Spirit, after being born again, then she or he is absolutely wrong!

Being Born Again cannot be achieved without receiving the Holy Spirit. If anyone received the Holy Spirit, he or she is already born again.

Some churches like Pentecostal ( not all, but some Charismatic) say that they should receive the Baptism of Holy Spirit and the proof of it is speaking in Unknown Tongues, which is absolutley wrong!

If anyone is truly born again, she or he has got already Baptism of Holy Spirit.

By hearing the word of God, one can be born again by Holy Spirit.

 

GE:

In every respect I shall say, Amen!

 

Notice two of your statements, the one as true as the other:

".... If anyone received the Holy Spirit, he or she is already born again. .... If anyone is truly born again, she or he has got already Baptism of Holy Spirit ...."

I agree.

Now what about Ephesians 4 which says, ONE baptism? What about baptism with water, then?

 

Bob,

bmerr here. I apologize for the scarcity of scripture references earlier. I was unarmed.

My reasoning for #1 is based on the fact that in the context of the unity of the Spirit, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:1-5). In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded His apostles to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:19-20).

One of the things the apostles were to teach others to observe was baptism. The phrase, "in the name of" simply means "in the authority of" (Luke 20:1-8; Mark 11:27-33; Matt 21:23-27). The things that Christ spoke came from the Father (John 17:8), and the same words (John 14:26) and more (John 16:12-13) were brought from Christ to the apostles by the Holy Spirit . Chain of Command. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit commanded through the apostles a baptism that was to be administered by men, and was to last unto the end of the world.

In other verses, we see that this was a baptism in water (Acts 8:38-39; 10:47-48), and that it was a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12) in the likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ, thus requiring immersion, as neither sprinkling nor pouring are in the likeness of Christ's burial and resurrection.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was never commanded by Christ, only promised to the apostles (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:5, 8). It was administered by Christ (Mark 1:8). This promise was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4, its' fulfillment being confirmed by inspiriation in Acts 2:16-21.

The only other recorded instance of baptism with the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 10, where the Spirit fell on Cornelius and household. Peter had to recall all the way back to "the beginning" (Acts 2) to compare it to something (11:15), and he was reminded of "...the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (11:16). He then says that God had given Cornelius and co "...the like gift as he did unto us..."

This outpouring of the Spirit upon the Gentiles fulfilled the "all flesh" aspect of the Joel 2 prophecy, since now the Spirit had been poured out upon both Jew and Gentile.

Other than that, only Paul received baptism with the Holy Spirit, and his is only implied in that he was an apostle.

If baptism with the Holy Spirit is or ever was common to all believers, and all believers are to be baptized in water, then we have two baptisms, which puts us at odds with Eph 4:5. One of them must be ruled out.

Since the one baptism must be one that was commanded by God, can be administered by men, and will endure unto the end of the world, then the only choice is water baptism, since only immersion in water meets these conditions.

What I actually said was that Cornelius and family were not equipped for service as apostles. We are not told if they were given any miraculous gifts other than tongues, which initially served to convince the Jewish brethren with Peter that the Gentiles were candidates for salvation under the gospel of Christ.

Cornelius' reception of baptism with the Holy Spirit does not require that he received it for the same purpose as did the apostles.

John's baptism was in water for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), but for what reason did Jesus submit to it? "To fulfil all righteousness" (Matt 3:15).

Same element, different purpose.

In Acts 8, we read of Phillip going down to Samaria to preach the gospel. His preaching was supported by the miraculous works he was able to do (Mark 16:20; Acts 8:6). Even Simon, "...when he was baptized, continued with Phillip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done" (Acts 8:13).

The apostles in Jerusalem heard of Samaria's reception and obedience to the gospel, and they sent Peter and John [apostles], "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Why had the Spirit not fallen on any of the Samaritans? Because Phillip did not have the authority to confer spiritual gifts on people.

Then laid they [Peter and John, apostles] their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power [authority], that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Simon was able to see how the Holy Ghost was given. Can you?

But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter..."

Why did simon have neither part nor lot in this matter of conferring miraculous spiritual gifts on people? Because he was not an apostle.

The only people who received miraculous spiritual gifts were those upon whom an apostle laid hands on for the purpose of conferring them. It seems as though there were a lot of those people in Corinth.

The Spirit chose who got what gifts, not the apostles.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

salvation = baptism of the holy spirit

 

gekko,

bmerr here. Any Scripture to back this statement up?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr here. I apologize for the scarcity of scripture references earlier. I was unarmed.

My reasoning for #1 is based on the fact that in the context of the unity of the Spirit, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:1-5). In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded His apostles to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:19-20).

One of the things the apostles were to teach others to observe was baptism. The phrase, "in the name of" simply means "in the authority of" (Luke 20:1-8; Mark 11:27-33; Matt 21:23-27). The things that Christ spoke came from the Father (John 17:8), and the same words (John 14:26) and more (John 16:12-13) were brought from Christ to the apostles by the Holy Spirit . Chain of Command. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit commanded through the apostles a baptism that was to be administered by men, and was to last unto the end of the world.

In other verses, we see that this was a baptism in water (Acts 8:38-39; 10:47-48), and that it was a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12) in the likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ, thus requiring immersion, as neither sprinkling nor pouring are in the likeness of Christ's burial and resurrection.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was never commanded by Christ, only promised to the apostles (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:5, 8). It was administered by Christ (Mark 1:8). This promise was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4, its' fulfillment being confirmed by inspiriation in Acts 2:16-21.

The only other recorded instance of baptism with the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 10, where the Spirit fell on Cornelius and household. Peter had to recall all the way back to "the beginning" (Acts 2) to compare it to something (11:15), and he was reminded of "...the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (11:16). He then says that God had given Cornelius and co "...the like gift as he did unto us..."

This outpouring of the Spirit upon the Gentiles fulfilled the "all flesh" aspect of the Joel 2 prophecy, since now the Spirit had been poured out upon both Jew and Gentile.

Other than that, only Paul received baptism with the Holy Spirit, and his is only implied in that he was an apostle.

If baptism with the Holy Spirit is or ever was common to all believers, and all believers are to be baptized in water, then we have two baptisms, which puts us at odds with Eph 4:5. One of them must be ruled out.

Since the one baptism must be one that was commanded by God, can be administered by men, and will endure unto the end of the world, then the only choice is water baptism, since only immersion in water meets these conditions.

GE:

You make the basic mistake to mistake the prophecy-fulfilling once for all 'OUTPOURING' of the Holy Spirit upon the very first Christians, for the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, without which being baptised unto regeneration, faith and obedience, there are NO children of God -- NO real Christians.

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. I know you've mentioned in the past that your eyesight might not be what it once was, so I've taken the liberty to upsize for your benefit.

I don't think the "gift of the Holy Ghost" promised in Acts 2:38 is the same thing as the baptism of the Holy Ghost promised by Jesus.

Like I said before, Peter commanded repentance and a baptism which was in water for the remission of sins, and those who obeyed would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was not commanded, only promised, and it was administered by Christ, Himself. Nobody prayed for it, nobody asked for it, it just happened when Jesus decided it was time. No human intervention or action was required.

I also believe that the gift of the Holy Ghost promised in Acts 2:38 is distinct from the miraculous spiritual gifts that were present in the early church.

The Samaritans in Acts 8 had believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost in whatever sense it was meant in Acts 2:38.

But, it required apostles to come and lay hands upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-18) for them to be given the ability to perform wondrous works as Phillip had done.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

great statement of faith with understanding :thumbs:

 

me:

Thank you for your consideration.

You:

"I don't think the "gift of the Holy Ghost" promised in Acts 2:38 is the same thing as the baptism of the Holy Ghost promised by Jesus. ... I also believe that the gift of the Holy Ghost promised in Acts 2:38 is distinct from the miraculous spiritual gifts that were present in the early church."

me:

Agreed!

You:

"Peter commanded repentance and a baptism which was in water for the remission of sins, and those who obeyed would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

me:

I just do not read what you claim here in 2:38 nor elsewhere.
In fact, the actual words say and mean, "into remission", just like it means "into the Name" etc. 'eis' can also mean 'unto' 'to the effect' and so on. The suggestion however of 'water' nowhere exists or is alluded to. It is only our conditioned thinking that makes us imagine 'water' in this text.

You:

"Baptism with the Holy Spirit was not commanded, only promised, and it was administered by Christ, Himself. Nobody prayed for it, nobody asked for it, it just happened when Jesus decided it was time. No human intervention or action was required."

me:

True.
But it is no different with the baptism which saves individually every person saved, though required by God. In order to be saved, the baptism by the Holy Spirit is, promised, and it is, administered, by Christ Himself. Nobody prayed for it -- only resisted it, nobody asked for it -- never even thought of it. But it happened -- not, 'just', but by the eternal willing of God; it happened in the individual life, when Jesus decided it was time. No human intervention or action was required, and no human intervention or action could assist God -- or prevent Him.

You:

"The Samaritans in Acts 8 had believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost in whatever sense it was meant in Acts 2:38.

But, it required apostles to come and lay hands upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-18) for them to be given the ability to perform wondrous works as Phillip had done."

me:

I don't think that was the case if the prophetic fulfilment is presupposed. I do think they received the Holy Spirit in the sense though that John the baptist meant, that Jesus would baptise with fire and power of the Holy Spirit. It was their regeneration which not necessarily is the act of God in one moment - but which can strech over considerable time.
The Samaritans in Acts 8 had believed and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which means that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost in whatever sense it was meant in Acts 2:38.

IT WAS THEN, that ".... it required apostles to come and lay hands upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-18) for them to be given the ability to perform wondrous works as Phillip had done."
This, was the 2:38 Promise re-enacted upon the Samaritans.