Hello everyone, question for a baptist knowlegable of baptist doctrine

Welcome Stephanie. You will get lots of answers here from all angles. I suggest posting some questions in the general Baptist discussion.

 

Stephanie, I think questions are probably the best sign that you're grasping things and care about it (afterall, if nobody asks a question after a speech, they either didn't listen, or didn't care.)

That being said, I think the answer is that Baptists will typically look at the sections of Acts where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from conversion as being "descriptive" and not "normative"

That is, Acts is often viewed as the transition of the church life. If you look at how the Holy Spirit filled the people and they began to speak in tongues, it didn't always happen the same way. Sometimes it required a laying on of hands, other times it happened without laying on of hands by the apostles. So from that, we might be able to say that even within Acts, the practice was not normative. If it wasn't a normative practice then, why should it be now.

I'm in no way an expert, and I'm sure others can elaborate or show me where I'm wrong, but I think that is at least a start to your answer.

 

You have to also understand that the act of "Speaking in tongues" was done BEFORE the completion of the Word of God.

God used this speaking in tongues to further the Gospel. It was NOT a "jibberish" language. But an ACTUALLY language.

The language barriers were harder to overcome back then, then now. So, God allowed one to speak in a language that would be understood by all.

But since the completion of the Word of God, the tongues issue is--well---really NOT an issue. (or should not be)

 

Hello Stephanie! And a great BIG welcome to the BB from the great state of Illinois!

Come on down to the COMMON GROUND COFFEE HOUSE in "Other Discussions", where as Christians, we are all on common ground...

It is a great place to kick back, relax, and get to know each other. And we have FREE food and beverages!

§ue

 

Stephanie, first and foremost, Welcome to the BaptistBoard.com! Secondly, as you may noticed, this is not a discussion forum, only the first step to introducing yourself, saying hello, and then move on to a more appropriate forum to post your questions. For that reason I have moved your thread tot he Christian Debate Forums, to the Other Christian Denominations. You will be notified by an email as to the exact location of the thread.

Now as far as Baptists not believing about the filling of the Holy Spirit, I do not know where you got that idea? For we indeed believe in the filling, so much so that we ask the Lord to fill us fresh and anew with His Holy Spirit. But when you mention speaking in tongues, that is a non-Baptist theology, an addition to the Scriptures which some Christians adhere to.

But you have a great time here on this board and enjoy the interaction with fellow believers.

 

Hi Stephanie, you're asking the wrong question! Turn your question around and ask why other religions chose the LEAST gift and give it the MOST importance....

 

The filling of the spirit should be viewed the same why you would look at if someone said, “he filled with anger” or “she is full of envy “it is what controlling you at the time.

So to be filled with the Spirit is to guided by the Spirit that all.

 

Stephanie,

Normative means that something is "normal" and should be practiced. Descriptive means that the event is just describing what has happened, but not necessarily prescribing it for us.

For example, let's look at

This verse tells us how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. If this verse is "Normative" then every decision we make should be made by casting lots. If this is "descriptive" then it tells us how they made THAT decision without telling us to do it.

The next time they make a decision like this is in

Here they don't use lots, so we should believe that we should not be casting lots (its never used again in scripture after this point.)

One verse that is used to advocate this position is:

If you look at

Here you see people receiving the Holy Spirit from merely hearing the word of God, before they were baptized.

Here we see they weren't filled until Paul laid his hands on them.

So within this setting, the 3 times that I know of in Acts where it talks about getting filled with the Holy Spirit, 2 were a result of the laying on of hands, however, one was the result of merely hearing the word. In addition, there are numerous other conversion accounts, where there is no mention of the Holy Spirit coming upon them.

What I'm trying to say is, based on the context of these 3 sets of verses, it seems that at best it would be wise to not build a doctrine of a 2nd blessing.

Hope that helps

 

I'm not a Baptist - I'm abaptist. Nevertheless may I comment? I think here are the key-words to what is troubling you: "... the sections of Acts where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from conversion as being "descriptive" and not "normative"".
The baptism of the Holy Spirit in the referred sections was directed at conversion and tide up with it normatively, for here is where the Gospel started, and where started the Church. Subjectivity is the last thing it had to do with; it was the Word of Proclamation of Jesus Christ that "pricked the heart" - not some extraordinary exprerience of the Holy Spirit, but its SOLE experience - that of finding it to convince a human being of Jesus Christ: "He shall witness of ME" - not, 'I shall witness of the Holy Spirit'.

 

So how does that fit with the many Baptist churches in the Uk and plenty of other countries outside the US who actively beleive in tongues and all the other gifts of the Spirit? I think that's something of a sweeping statement!

 

Those are not true Baptist churches if they don't hold to Baptist distinctives.

 

There sure is a lot of debate in baptist circles about cessation. I would think if it was a "distinctive" that the debate would be minimal or non-existant.

 

Those are not true Baptist churches if they don't hold to Baptist distinctives. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh well... that's wiped out over half of the UK Baptist Union. Here I was thinking that being a Baptist was to do with believer's baptism.