HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT, ie the third member of the Trinity

Someone on another thread attempted to hijack the thread with a discussion of Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

For the purposes of this discussion I said that the Holy Spirit fills/indwells/baptizes the same folks.

This statement flew all over that particular individual.

He authoritatively stated

I never said he did nor did I say he did not. My point stating that the Holy Spirit fills/indwells/baptizes the same folks was to offer a list of what most people would commonly refer to as the incarnational work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

I personally think that this is a matter of semantics when we argue that the Holy Spirit baptizes vs being baptized in the Holy Spirit. What we are talking about is Holy Spirit baptism.

My question for the board is what do you believe the Bible teachings about the filling/indwelling/baptism of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer?

 

I believe we are filled or indwelled with the Spirit upon regeneration and receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Now, as believers, we can grieve the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit however never leaves us. I think that we can be filled with His presence in us, or He can, and I say this lightly, remove His empowering within us as we grieve Him. I do believe that God is in control even in the times that we grieve Him, and that He will accomplish His purposes even through that. I know that the times Í have felt spiritual famine in my own Christian life, it was for His purpose of molding and making be into a better tool for HIs use.

 

I think the question involves more than semantics, since an entire eschatalogical position has been built around one verse. That's I Cor 12:13, which speaks of being baptized by the Holy Spirit. The Greek "en" can just as easily, and in fact more properly, be translated "in." And the Spirit mentioned there is not necessarily the HS. It could be translated a "little s" spirit. And "baptized," I believe, refers to water baptism. That's the reason I agree with the poster you quoted who said the Holy Spirit never baptized anybody. Nor is that scripture verse a reference to the Day of Pentecost, which is popularly held to be the day of the forming of the church.

I do agree with you that believers are filled/indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But while believers are indwelt by the HS at the moment of their salvation, I also believe there can more than one filling. I hold this position for a couple of reasons. One, my own experience and my observation of the experiences of others. Two, some examples in the Bible: Such as Acts 4:8 "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit..." And, Acts 13:9: "And Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed...."

I'm not a scholar, but the verses seem to indicate that Peter and Paul were filled with the HS on that occasion and for the purposes of that occasion--that that they were filled up all the time. However, 13:52 says the disciples were continually filled, so I could be wrong.

May I ask a question here. Under what circumstances does filling occur? Is it a sovereign act of God (as indwelling is), or can the believer do something to trigger the filling?

Don't mean to hijack the thread with another question, but your OP appears to be broad enough to allow it.

 

I do not want to shape this discussion too much up front, and would like to allow for several people to have a chance to contribute before I hand down the edict of BPT. However, let me just say that I think that the Holy Spirit is the person of God who transfers to the believer the benefits of the Father's love provided by the Son's atonement. At the moment you come to faith in Christ, I believe that you are endowed with a sealing through the personal presence of God in the form of Holy Spirit, so that a convert can say that I am bought with the blood and sealed with the Holy Spirit. Wesleyian theology can lend itself toward a concept commonly referred to as a second work of grace, which I do not hold to be valid. According to this view the baptism of the Holy Spirit at that point removes inherited sin, the carnal nature, and enables the believer to live without willful sin.

 

First, let us Consider it Historically

My question for the board is what do you believe the Bible teachings about the filling/indwelling/baptism of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer?


Johnny Come Lately Mystical Baptism versus the Ancient Landmarks

The notion of some that to apply 1 Cor. 12:13 to water baptism is a recent Landmark Baptist heresy, which originated with J.R. Graves and a few others and is totally without historical proof (falsehood). The early English Baptists and American Baptists looked upon 1 Cor. 12:13 as teaching the Holy Spirit leads the born again believer to receive water baptism which is the door into the assembly of the saints. Some of the first to apply this passage to Spirit baptism were John Bunyan and John Gill.

1.) Menno Simons (1496 1561) applied 1 Cor. 12:13 to water baptism:

"Since Christ Jesus has commanded baptism upon the confession of faith, and since the apostles have so taught and practiced it, and since the meaning of baptism according to Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12; Titus 3:5; Gal. 3:27; I Cor 12:13, and 1 Pet. 3:21, cannot be construed of believers, therefore it is sufficiently forbidden by this divine ORDINANCE to baptize infants. For they have not the faith symbolized in baptism (water)." (The Complete Writings of . . . p. 264)

2.) William Kiffin (1616 1701) makes the following comment:

"Argument 2. from 1 Cor. 12:13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. If baptism be Gods appointed ordinary way of ingrafting all into the body of Christ, then it is a standing Ordinance, as being of a standing use: but baptism is so, therefore, the Antecedent will appear in plain Text, if you consider, First, that it is real baptism that is here mentioned; the Spirit being spoken of as a concurrent cause; Secondly, That it was ALL that were thus baptized into the body." – A Sober Discourse on Right to Church communion, p. 96, 1681-edition

3.) In the declaration of faith by Thomas Helwys of 1611, Article 10, reads:

"That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people 1 Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1, seperated from the world by the word & Spirit of God, 2 Cor. 6:17, being knit unto the LORD, & one unto another, by Baptisme, 1 Cor. 12:13, Upon their own confession of the faith, Acts 8:37, and sinnes, Mat. 3:6. – Baptists Confessions of Faith by Lumpkins, p. 119

4.) John Spilsbury (1616 1660), pastor of the Particular Baptist Church of London, England, wrote:

"Secondly, the ordinance of baptism instituted by Christ is so essential to the constitution of the church under the new testament that none can be true in her constitution without it. Neither can that be a false church where baptism is truly the Lord's ordinance in the administration thereof, AS 1 COR. 12:13 AND GAL. 3:27. So that to approve of Antichrist’s baptism to be God's ordinance, is to approve of his Church to be also the Church of God. – A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subjects of Baptism, p. 52, 1652 edition

5.) Gov. Henry D'Anvers (? 1686) penned these words:

"A seventh End of Baptism is, That the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church, and have a right to partake of all the Ordinances and Privileges thereof. For as Circumcision of old was the visible door of entrance into the Old Testament Church, and so essentially necessary thereto, that without it, none were esteemed either Church Members, or were to partake either of the Passover, or of and of the privileges thereof, all without being called the UNcircumcision: so also was Baptism such a Door, and visible entrance into the New–Testament–church, that none were esteemed Members thereof, or did partake of its Ordinances before they were baptized, being to God's Hedge and Boundary, that others were esteemed without . . .”

“And therefore it is said, 1 Cor. 12:13. That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit, viz. The same Spirit of Faith, Regeneration and holiness, which gives right to Baptism, orderly lets into the Body of Church, and so admits also the Supper, which is the received sense of most Interpreters upon the place." – A Treatise of Baptism, pp. 20 21, 1674 edition

6.) Article XXXV of the London Confession of 1644 applies 1 Cor. 12:12 31 to the local church where spiritual gifts are exercised.

7.) The Somerset Confession of 1656, Article XXIV, reads: "That it is the duty of every man and woman that have repented of dead works, and have faith towards God to be baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 37, 38), that is, dipped or buried under the water (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12), in the name of our Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16), or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), therein to signify and represent a washing away of sin (Acts 22:16), and their death, burial, and resurrection with Christ (Rom. 6:5; Col. 2:12), and being thus planted in the visible church or body of Christ (one Cor. 12:13*), who are a company of men and women separated out of the world by the preaching of the gospel (Acts 2:41); II Cor. 6:17), do walk together in communion in all the commandments of Jesus (Acts 2:42), wherein God is glorified and their souls comforted (2 Thess. 1:11,12; 2 Cor. 1:4)" (op. c.t., pp. 209 210). *(corrected typo in original reference address, 1 Cor. 12:3)

The Berea Baptist Banner October 15, 1984 -- Compiled and adapted by Herb Evans

 

What the Baptism is Not #1

THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST​

What it is Not​

Many books and articles have been written, regarding the baptism, with the Holy Ghost. Some go as far as to misrepresent John 7:39, “the Holy Ghost was not yet given,” in order to play down the Holy Spirit’s pre Pentecostal PRESENCE. This would ignore the Saviour’s plain statement to the fact that the apostles both KNEW and DWELLED with the Holy Spirit (John 14:l7). The Holy Spirit’s PRESENCE is not under consideration in John 7:39; His future office, function, and power are. The Holy Spirit, indeed, had not yet been given as “another” Comforter (John 14:6) or another Administrator. However, before Pentecost, in the Gospels, the “Comforter Vicar Elect” was certainly on earth, awaiting His future installation and inauguration. Even before that, the Old Testament Israelites were said to have rebelled against, vexed, and resisted the Holy Spirit (Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51).

Another tendency, which causes further confusion, is to ignore the Holy Spirit’s ACTIVITY before Pentecost. It is akin to ignoring Christ’s activity on earth before Bethlehem (Acts 7:38, 39; 1 Cor. 10:4; Gen. 1:26) or ignoring the Christ’s Holy Ghost conception (Matt. 1:20) and the Holy Spirit anointing of Christ before His official, public anointing—at His water baptism (Matt. 3:16; Luke 2:21,22; 4:14; Acts 10:38). Consider first what the baptism with the Holy Spirit was NOT:

NOT the Apostolic Signs, Gifts, or Miracles​

. . . SIGNS of an APOSTLE were wrought among you . . . -- 2 Cor. 12:12

. . . many WONDERS and SIGNS were done by the APOSTLES . . . -- Acts 2:43

. . . they went forth confirming the word with SIGNS following. -- Mark 16:20

. . . to make the GENTILES obedient, by word and DEED, Through mighty SIGNS and WONDERS by the power of the Spirit of God . . . --Romans 15:18,19

Truly, the Book of Acts and the four Gospels are transitional Books. Albeit, so are First Corinthians (12:28 - 3l; 13:8; 14:6), Second Corinthians (12:12), First Thessalonians (5:20), First Timothy (4:14), Second Timothy (1:6), Romans (15:18,19), and Galatians (3:5). Some ultra-dispensational and over-dispensational teaching employ too sharply divided divisions of Bible Books and Chapters in order to explain away apostolic signs. However, the apostolic signs, wonders, and miracles continue throughout the Book of Acts (Acts 5:12; 14:3; 19:11; 20:9, 10; and 28:4-6) and were even wrought among the Gentiles (Rom. 15:18, 19; 2 Cor. 12:12).

The apostles and prophets were set in the church (1 Cor. 12:28), and their special miracles belonged also to the Gentile church. These special powers and miracles ceased with the death of the apostles and prophets and the advent of completed revelation even “that which is perfect” (1 Cor. 13:8-10)* without any need for a special Jewish church/dispensation in the Book of Acts. Conspicuously, the apostolic signs, which did follow the apostles, did not include the mighty rushing wind sound and cloven tongues of fire sign which accompanied only the baptism with the Holy Ghost!

*Note: “that which” is perfect must match “that which” is done away; it is not Christ, heaven, or the rapture; it is the word of God, completed revelation as opposed to partial revelation. -- Herb Evans

 

What it is Not #2

 

What it is Not #3

B]

THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST​

[/B]

What it is Not​

Not the Dwelling with the Spirit nor the Spirit Indwelling​

. . . Joshua . . . a man IN whom is the spirit . . . Num. 27:18

. . . the spirit entered INTO me when he spake unto me . . . Ezek. 2:2

. . . thou . . . testifiedst against them BY thy spirit IN thy prophets . . . Neh. 9:30

. . . ye do ALWAYS RESIST the Holy Ghost: AS your fathers DID . . . Acts 7:51

. . . the Spirit of truth . . . he DWELLETH WITH you . . . John 14:17

. . . Joshua . . . IN whom is the spirit . . . --Num. 27:18

. . . the spirit entered INTO me when he spake unto me . . . -- Ezek. 2:2

. . . the prophets [O.T.] have inquired . . . Searching what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was IN them . . . --1 Peter 1:11

Only the PERMANENT indwelling of the Holy Spirit is confined to the New Testament. The O.T. TEMPORARY indwelling, like other subjects, might not be emphasized, theologically defined, or even mentioned in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they still did exist in the Old Testament, despite the problem that it may present to modern dispensationalists. Still, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

-- Herb Evans

 

What it is Not #4

THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST​

What it is Not​

Not the Receipt of the Holy Spirit​

. . . he (Jesus) breathed on them, and saith unto them RECEIVE ye the Holy Ghost . . . (before Pentecost) John 20:22

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost . . . (Samaritans) - Acts 8:17

The Holy Spirit's indwelling, receipt, coming, presence, and activity were not confined, to the New Testament. The Holy Ghost was on earth (Luke 3:22 and Matt 3:16; John 7:39) long before Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was RECEIVED BEFORE anyone was ever baptized with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Therefore, it cannot be the baptism, of the Holy Ghost.

The reception of the Holy Ghost was involved with the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17; 19:6) at times. However at Pentecost, the laying on of hands was not required in order to receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost neither was it required of the Gentiles of Acts 10. The laying on of hands is a sign of human approval and authority (Num. 27:18). In the case of the Samaritans, they had rejected the authority of the God of Jerusalem (John 4:20 24). The disciples of Acts 19 were disciples; the only question is “whose?” They did not know about Christ nor the Holy Spirit—an unlikely improbability if not an impossibility, if they were disciples of John (Matt. 3:11; John 1:15 - 17, 26 34). The Samaritans and these disciples had to have hands lain on them and also to be baptized or rebaptized in order to receive the Holy spirit (Acts 8:12, 16, 17, 20; 19:5, 6). These acts involve considerations of authority. Apollos, who knew only John’s baptism, was not rebaptized neither did he require hands to be laid on him. He was a bonafide convert above such suspicion, who received proper authority and was already “fervent in the spirit” (Acts 18:25). Neither the laying on of hands nor the receipt of the holy Spirit is the baptism with the Holy spirit.

--Herb Evans

 

What it is Not #5

 

The O.T. and N.T. Types #6

THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST​

The Old Testament Type​

. . . our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES in the CLOUD and in the SEA . . . 1 Cor. 10:1,2

. . . a cloud COVERED THE MOUNT. And the GLORY OF THE LORD abode UPON mount Sinai, and . . . he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire . . . Exo. 24:15 17

So Moses FINISHED the work. Then a cloud COVERED THE TENT of the congregation, and the GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED the tabernacle. Ex. 40:33,34

. . . I heard behind me a voice of a GREAT RUSHING, saying, Blessed be the GLORY OF THE LORD from his place. I heard . . . a NOISE OF A GREAT RUSHING.
Ezek. 3:12,13

The congregation of Israel, after having been CORPORATELY water baptized in the sea, was then corporately baptized in the cloud. This was not an individual affair; it was a corporate affair that included their place of assembly in the House of God. The Holy Spirit has never engulfed or baptized merely ONE single individual.

This PUBLIC water BAPTISM in the sea preceded the PUBLIC INAUGURATION of the finished tabernacle under Moses. After Moses finished his work, the Father covered the congregation with the cloud and filled the tabernacle with the Glory of the Lord (Exodus 16:10; 24:15 17; 40:34, 35). The Glory of the Lord also filled the temple of Solomon and Ezekiel (2 Chron. 7:1; Ezekiel 3:12,13) with visible fire and AUDIBLE RUSHING NOISE. These CORPORATE and PUBLIC events were not the Pentecostal baptism with the Holy Ghost (but we are getting close). Still, they were the types that foreshadowed the future Holy Spirit baptism, which was also an INAUGURATION of the HOUSE OF GOD and was a visible, audible, and even a feel-able public event.

Since the tabernacle of the congregation existed before the cloud enveloped it, and since a believer must exist before being immersed in water, it follows that the church, whatever one believes it to be, must have existed before it was baptized with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Christ is the Founder of that church (MY CHURCH) and not the Holy Spirit, just as Moses, the type of Christ, was the founder of the tabernacle, and Solomon was the founder of the temple. The apostles were set first in this church BEFORE Pentecost! (1 Cor. 12:28). It was to this congregation that the audible signal was sent that the great High Priest was alive and well in the Holy of Holies (Acts 2/Ex. 28:33 34 - note the bells).

The New Testament Type​

The preceding O.T. water baptism, followed by the Glory of the Lord baptism of the finished tabernacle, is followed by John’s WATER baptism of Israel, this finished material was prepared by John the Baptist for God’s house, even Christ’s infant, local church (Mk. 13:34; Heb. 3:6). The INAUGURATION of Christ, as its Commander, Teacher, Guide, and Comforter, of His church was at Christ’s water baptism, the Holy Ghost anointing Him, as God’s Spirit descends upon and fills Jesus (Luke 4:1). The water and Spirit baptisms, of Israel, Christ, and Christ's house were visible, audible, feel-able, and public events (Matt. 3:16, 17; John 1:33,34), which are N.T. types, preceding the inauguration of the Holy Spirit and its baptism of the new house of God.

--Herb Evans

 

What the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Was

 

Dr. Herb,

Good of you to join us.

Why don't I just address your magnus postus in a more manageable portion?

The first aorist passive indicative of baptizo is a reference to a definite past event with each of them of different nationalities, social classes, and ethnicities, when each of them put on the outward badge of service to Christ, the symbol of the inward changes already worked in them by the Spirit's presence (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:2).

So up and until now you are well within the biblical frame work of 1 Cor. 12:13.

However, the last phrase gives one pause. And were all made to drink of one Spirit (kai pantes hen pneuma epotisthemen).

First aorist passive indicative of potizo, to give to drink. The accusative hen pneuma is retained in the passive as often with verbs that in the active take two accusatives. The reference is to a definite act in the past, however, whether that is to a symbolic reference to water baptism is anything but definite. The reference is more literally understood as the inward experience of the Holy Spirit which is symbolized by the act of baptism.

I see no real danger is suggesting that we are immersed in the Holy Spirit or filled with the Holy Spirit or even sealed by the Holy Spirit. What in fact we are talking about is the same thing, which is the mystical union with God in the life of the believer. The mystical union with God occurs through faith in Christ and is in fact brought on at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. There is a transformation that must occur in order to be saved. Jesus said that unless you are born again you will not see the kingdom of heaven. Therefore you must be born of the Spirit.

Why is it the Holy Spirit makes us baptists so extremely nervous? Is it because of what the Pentecostals do in the name of the Spirit? Jesus is looking for those who worship him in Spirit and in Truth, not either nor neither but both and. The Holy Spirit is not a step child but a full manifestation of God. Like I have said the Spirit is the personal presence of God with and in the life of the believer.

 

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Dr. Herb, Good of you to join us.

Thank you! -- Herb Evans

Why don't I just address your magnus postus in a more manageable portion?

I like the ring of that. Help yourself! -- Herb Evans

The first aorist passive indicative of baptizo is a reference to a definite past event with each of them of different nationalities, social classes, and ethnicities, when each of them put on the outward badge of service to Christ, the symbol of the inward changes already worked in them by the Spirit's presence (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:2).

So up and until now you are well within the biblical frame work of 1 Cor. 12:13.

Up to now, your are in the correct framework, althouth the Greek is totally unecessary. Obviously, you consider the Greek to be superior to the English, but that is another argument for another time. -- Herb Evans

However, the last phrase gives one pause. And were all made to drink of one Spirit (kai pantes hen pneuma epotisthemen).

First aorist passive indicative of potizo, to give to drink. The accusative hen pneuma is retained in the passive as often with verbs that in the active take two accusatives. The reference is to a definite act in the past, however, whether that is to a symbolic reference to water baptism is anything but definite. The reference is more literally understood as the inward experience of the Holy Spirit which is symbolized by the act of baptism.

I do not hold this a relevant to my post. Baptists, historically have demanded salvation before baptism, and the Holy Spirit must accompany salvation for if any man have not the Spirit, he is none of his. -- Herb Evans

I see no real danger is suggesting that we are immersed in the Holy Spirit or filled with the Holy Spirit or even sealed by the Holy Spirit. What in fact we are talking about is the same thing, which is the mystical union with God in the life of the believer. The mystical union with God occurs through faith in Christ and is in fact brought on at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. There is a transformation that must occur in order to be saved. Jesus said that unless you are born again you will not see the kingdom of heaven. Therefore you must be born of the Spirit.

Seeing real danger or not, the question is have we really been immersed in the Holy Spirit or not as those at Pentecost. As i demonstrated the filling (and even the sealing) have nothing to do with the socalled Spirit baptism. I agree with your comments on the transformation, a new creature in Christ; i also agree with a person being born again by the Holy Spirit to be saved. I really am not crazy over this "mystical union" stuff, however. -- Herb Evans

Why is it the Holy Spirit makes us baptists so extremely nervous? Is it because of what the Pentecostals do in the name of the Spirit?

That is not my problem. My problem is that this so called baptism of the Holy Spirit is ethreal, not having the visible, feelable, and hearable evidence as that which took place at Pentecost. In other words, I did not see it, feel it, or hear it, if it ever happened to me, and I cannot find anyone who has.

My second problem is that there is no record of any individual being baptized by the Holy Spirt. I see only corporated entities being so baptized. I think that you will agree that getting nervous about somethin that is not true is an asset and not a liability. -- Herb Evans

Jesus is looking for those who worship him in Spirit and in Truth, not either nor neither but both and. The Holy Spirit is not a step child but a full manifestation of God. Like I have said the Spirit is the personal presence of God with and in the life of the believer.

I agree with this. -- Herb Evans

 

Dr. Herb,

I am what you would refer to as a cessationist. Therefore I would not expect much of what happened in the NT as experienced by the Apostles to continue beyond that era in particular.

It is quite humorous for you to observe that being baptized by the Spirit is ethereal. That is like saying that being born again is spiritual. Just because something is mystical does not mean it is not objective and quantifiable.

God is the source and supply of all our lives, as demonstrated by his calling and equipping his people for service in a covenantal relationship with him. The call of God takes place by virtue of the work of Christ, and the service takes place by means of the Spirit. There is no synergism in the covenant in which God contributes his part and we do ours in order to accomplish something together that is greater than either of our efforts in isolation. God is not looking for our help. The importance of the cross in salvation and on the work of the Spirit in justification and sanctification makes it evident that the initiative, origin, and sustenance of the new covenant is due solely to the unilateral and merciful work of God on behalf of his people.

It is the Spirit, in bringing one to Christ for forgiveness of sins, who brings into being the new life of the new creation. One can claim faith in Christ and remain faithful to him only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our covenantal relationship with God is from beginning to end based on God’s previous act of redemption and continuing acts of provision. This is the great indicative reality of the gospel.

Therefore I submit to you for your consideration that the presence of the Spirit is quantifiable based on the level of transformation that is evident through faith based obedience. What God demands he provides and he demands obedience. Faith based obedience is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

As such, I do not agree that the work of the Spirit is invisible, or non-sensory. As I have alluded to in my aforementioned comments you can observe the transformation of the inner person through the presence of the Holy Spirit by observing the transformation of the outer person through faith based obedience empowered by the inner presence of the power of God.

Moreover, while others may not be able to have a sensory conformation of the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit upon conviction of sin, heartfelt Godly sorrow, and subsequent faith in the gospel, the individual believer may very well attest to the infilling or baptism of the Spirit upon being born again.

Perhaps we are dealing with a case of head knowledge and not heart knowledge. Faith with out works is dead. If you do not have a life changing faith that results in the spiritual presence of God within your life then I have deep concerns about the veracity of your relationship with God. Jesus said that his sheep know his voice and that he calls them by name. I have a personal relationship with Jesus and have constant dialog with him daily. I have the personal presence of God within me that continually guides and directs my ways.

What about the Ethiopian eunuch who had not received the Holy Spirit and was instructed to do so?

Moreover, you have a serious dilemma and somewhat of a paradox if on the one hand you say you believe the Holy Spirit to be the personal presence of God with and in the life of the believer, as you have clearly indicated that you do, and on the other hand you do not hold that there is a mystical union/baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

If you are given the presence of God that is unique to faith in Christ. Only those who have faith in Christ are born again. Only those who are born again have been baptized in with by through the Holy Spirit.

 

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]Dr. Herb,

I am what you would refer to as a cessationist. Therefore I would not expect much of what happened in the NT as experienced by the Apostles to continue beyond that era in particular.

It is quite humorous for you to observe that being baptized by the Spirit is ethereal. That is like saying that being born again is spiritual. Just because something is mystical does not mean it is not objective and quantifiable.

God is the source and supply of all our lives, as demonstrated by his calling and equipping his people for service in a covenantal relationship with him. The call of God takes place by virtue of the work of Christ, and the service takes place by means of the Spirit. There is no synergism in the covenant in which God contributes his part and we do ours in order to accomplish something together that is greater than either of our efforts in isolation. God is not looking for our help. The importance of the cross in salvation and on the work of the Spirit in justification and sanctification makes it evident that the initiative, origin, and sustenance of the new covenant is due solely to the unilateral and merciful work of God on behalf of his people.

It is the Spirit, in bringing one to Christ for forgiveness of sins, who brings into being the new life of the new creation. One can claim faith in Christ and remain faithful to him only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our covenantal relationship with God is from beginning to end based on God’s previous act of redemption and continuing acts of provision. This is the great indicative reality of the gospel.

Therefore I submit to you for your consideration that the presence of the Spirit is quantifiable based on the level of transformation that is evident through faith based obedience. What God demands he provides and he demands obedience. Faith based obedience is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

As such, I do not agree that the work of the Spirit is invisible, or non-sensory. As I have alluded to in my aforementioned comments you can observe the transformation of the inner person through the presence of the Holy Spirit by observing the transformation of the outer person through faith based obedience empowered by the inner presence of the power of God.

Moreover, while others may not be able to have a sensory conformation of the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit upon conviction of sin, heartfelt Godly sorrow, and subsequent faith in the gospel, the individual believer may very well attest to the infilling or baptism of the Spirit upon being born again.

Non-sensory is your word not mine. And you have seen the Holy Spirit, since you say he is not invisible. I think you are referring to the results of the LIKE THE WIND, you see the results but not the wind. At least i hope that is where you are going, and I have no proble with that. But seeing, feeling, or hearing the Holy Spirit Baptsim is too much to believe. -- Herb Evans

Perhaps we are dealing with a case of head knowledge and not heart knowledge. Faith with out works is dead. If you do not have a life changing faith that results in the spiritual presence of God within your life then I have deep concerns about the veracity of your relationship with God. Jesus said that his sheep know his voice and that he calls them by name. I have a personal relationship with Jesus and have constant dialog with him daily. I have the personal presence of God within me that continually guides and directs my ways.

Since I do not have a mere head knowledge, this does not apply to me nor does it address my stated problems. -- Herb Evans

What about the Ethiopian eunuch who had not received the Holy Spirit and was instructed to do so?

If you have read all my posts on this subject, you would know that receiving the Holy Spirit is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to the passages that I posted. -- Herb Evans

Moreover, you have a serious dilemma and somewhat of a paradox if on the one hand you say you believe the Holy Spirit to be the personal presence of God with and in the life of the believer, as you have clearly indicated that you do, and on the other hand you do not hold that there is a mystical union/baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

I am in Christ and that is a spiritual union not a mystical union. I believe in the infilling of the Holy Spirit. That even occurred in the O.T. -- Herb Evans

If you are given the presence of God that is unique to faith in Christ. Only those who have faith in Christ are born again.

Agreed! Herb Evans

Only those who are born again have been baptized in with by through the Holy Spirit.

False! -- Herb Evans

 

Let me address your above states individually.

Dr. Herb when you say that you cannot see feel hear touch something then that something is non-sensory and your hope is misplaced because I have heard, seen, and felt the Holy Spirit and had you ever been born again you would have as well. I have heard the Holy Spirit first when I first was confronted with my need to receive Christ. I have often felt his spiritual presence since that time and more at others, but consistently during prayer and worship. I have seen the Holy Spirit fall on another during times of testimony and also during times of conviction. As was with Moses when the glory of the Lord was evident to Israel, now even more so is the glory of the Lord evident through the Holy Spirit as proved to us through the new covenant.

Sir, whether or not you believe in something is highly irrelevant. The fact remains that the Devil believes and trembles, yet he is as lost and devoid of God as any that one can imagine. The Devil believes the gospel of Christ. He believes that Jesus died on the cross. He believes he was raised from the dead. Head knowledge is mental ascent and many have a false sense that they have saving faith because of what they profess to believe by faith. Yet, James said show me your works and I will show you my faith. Faith without works is dead.

Believe it or not I actually read your post. Your post has a great deal of interesting thoughts and is in fact, with the exception of the first part, a repost that you made on another board. I am willing to have a conversation with you but please to not insult my intelligence by questioning my reading comprehension nor demonstrate such arrogance as to expect that I or anyone else would have any reason to read your multiple page single post. This a debate forum, not the United States Senate. We win debates in here on the substance of what is said not on the amount of filibuster we can produce. True wisdom is being able to same more in less time.

First of all the only way that you know for sure if you are in Christ is through the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. Second, if you believe in the infilling then you believe in Spirit baptism. Third, you are devoid of understanding if you think the OT was the age of the Spirit because the age of the infilling of the Spirit is a sign of the new covenant. In the OT the only ones who were filled with the Spirit were the prophets. Today the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The above passage is precisely what Paul was referring to in 2 Cor. 3:3,5

"3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.... 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Moreover, Paul makes the point that is precisely the point that I have been attempting to make in 3:12-18:

 

Dr. Herb when you say that you cannot see feel hear touch something then that something is non-sensory and your hope is misplaced because I have heard, seen, and felt the Holy Spirit and had you ever been born again you would have as well. I have heard the Holy Spirit first when I first was confronted with my need to receive Christ. I have often felt his spiritual presence since that time and more at others, but consistently during prayer and worship. I have seen the Holy Spirit fall on another during times of testimony and also during times of conviction. As was with Moses when the glory of the Lord was evident to Israel, now even more so is the glory of the Lord evident through the Holy Spirit as proved to us through the new covenant.

Sir, I was thinking that you wanted to talk about the Baptism of the Holy spirit. Instead, you seem to want to steer the discussion into things that you want to talk about and philosophize about, while you sermonize me. I under stand the still small voice, but I am talking about audible hearing. The new birth does not come with an audible sound, according to John 3:8. The baptism of the Holy Spirit does according to Acts TWO. Apples and oranges! – Herb Evans

Quote:
Since I do not have a mere head knowledge, this does not apply to me nor does it address my stated problems. -- Herb Evans

Sir, whether or not you believe in something is highly irrelevant. The fact remains that the Devil believes and trembles, yet he is as lost and devoid of God as any that one can imagine. The Devil believes the gospel of Christ. He believes that Jesus died on the cross. He believes he was raised from the dead. Head knowledge is mental ascent and many have a false sense that they have saving faith because of what they profess to believe by faith. Yet, James said show me your works and I will show you my faith. Faith without works is dead.

You are addressing my comment that states that your head knowledge comment does not apply to me. Where are you getting this believe thing? – Herb Evans

Quote:
If you have read all my posts on this subject, you would know that receiving the Holy Spirit is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to the passages that I posted. -- Herb Evans

Believe it or not I actually read your post. Your post has a great deal of interesting thoughts and is in fact, with the exception of the first part, a repost that you made on another board. I am willing to have a conversation with you but please to not insult my intelligence by questioning my reading comprehension nor demonstrate such arrogance as to expect that I or anyone else would have any reason to read your multiple page single post. This a debate forum, not the United States Senate. We win debates in here on the substance of what is said not on the amount of filibuster we can produce. True wisdom is being able to same more in less time.

Then, if you read it, you will agree that I discounted receiving the Holy Spirit as being the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do you reject the “substance” of that point. If not, why try to say that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Holy Spirit without substance? – Herb Evans

Quote:
I am in Christ and that is a spiritual union not a mystical union. I believe in the infilling of the Holy Spirit. -- Herb Evans

First of all the only way that you know for sure if you are in Christ is through the personal presence of the Holy Spirit.

We are agreed here. That is a spiritual union--not mystical. – Herb Evans

Second, if you believe in the infilling then you believe in Spirit baptism.

Not so or those in the Gospels and the O.T. who were filled, one even from his mother’s womb were baptized in the Holy Spirit before the baptism of the Holy spirit was initiated in Acts 2. – Herb Evans

Third, you are devoid of understanding if you think the OT was the age of the Spirit because the age of the infilling of the Spirit is a sign of the new covenant. In the OT the only ones who were filled with the Spirit were the prophets. Today the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Well, I’m sorry, but if you think the infillings of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels, while still operating under the old covenant, were the baptism of the holy Ghost before that baptism of the Holy Ghost ever happened, you are devoid of understanding. – Herb Evans

Jeremiah 31:31“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

The above passage is precisely what Paul was referring to in 2 Cor. 3:3,5

"3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.... 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

You can post all you want about the Holy Spirit, but you have note and will not get from Him to where you want to go, “the baptism of the Holy Ghost. – Herb Evans

Moreover, Paul makes the point that is precisely the point that I have been attempting to make in 3:12-18:

12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

I really don’t know how to tell you this but your Holy Spirit links that you are trying to force into the baptism of the Holy Spirit are not valid. – Herb Evans

 

The word baptize means to immerse. If you are immersed in the Holy Spirit you are baptized in the Holy Spirit. The OT was different from the NT because of the new covenant. The promise of being sealed with the Holy Spirit is now open to all of God's people. Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist. At Pentecost the church was individually filled/baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, or whatever your point is in trying to distance the word baptism with the person of the Holy Spirit, is beyond me. The fact remains that you have offered no substantive reason other than you cannot scientifically verify the Holy Spirit baptism and that you for some reason see no indication that individuals are baptized with the Holy Spirit. I have shown you where the Ethiopian was instructed to receive the Holy Spirit. You do not have grounds for limiting the definition of baptism to that of a visible manifestation like in the book of Acts. As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ. That sir is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what you want to call it. Also you do not seem to be able to recognize the difference in the OT and NT covenant when it comes to the work of the Spirit. To borrow your very worn out cliché, that is comparing apples to oranges. Differ epoch altogether. The church is now filled with the Spirit because they have been immersed in the Spirit/sealed with the Spirit.

 

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]The word baptize means to immerse. If you are immersed in the Holy Spirit you are baptized in the Holy Spirit.

That was Acts2 not now. i am a cessationist when it comes to that. -- Herb Evans

The OT was different from the NT because of the new covenant.

In regard to what? -- Herb Evans

The promise of being sealed with the Holy Spirit is now open to all of God's people.

Yes, but sealing and the baptism of the Spirit is two different things. -- Herb Evans

Before God did not dwell in the hearts of man, other than with an anointing, as in prophetic office. The NT example you site is of the last of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.

I would agree that the O.T indwelling was temporary, whereas the N.T is permanent. Was Elizabeth an O.T. prophet? -- Herb Evans

At Pentecost the church was individually filled/baptized with the Holy Spirit.

No, they were filled AND baptized and spoke in tongues. -- Herb Evans

However, or whatever your point is in trying to distance the word baptism with the person of the Holy Spirit, is beyond me.

The holy Spirit is a person; the baptism WAS an event. Your time frames are mixed up. -- Hreb Evans

The fact remains that you have offered no substantive reason other than you cannot scientifically verify the Holy Spirit baptism and that you for some reason see no indication that individuals are baptized with the Holy Spirit.

I see no reason to believe that individuals were so baptized, because there is no record that there were. I am not about to take some one's word for it. -- Herb Evans

I have shown you where the Ethiopian was instructed to receive the Holy Spirit.

You must have another Bible. in what passage do you find that assertion? -- Herb Evans

You do not have grounds for limiting the definition of baptism to that of a visible manifestation like in the book of Acts.

I have every reason in the world, the Holy spirit baptism by that name was prophesied and took place in Acts two, with a rushing wind, a shaken place, tongues of fire, and spoken tongues, never to be repeated again. -- Herb Evans

As I have said many things are no longer in effect from the age of the Apostles, however, rest assured that believers still receive the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ.

What are your mechanics for discerning which are in effect and which are not. I am going with the neither are in effect. -- Herb Evans

That sir is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what you want to call it.

That sir is a pontification! -- Herb Evans

Also you do not seem to be able to recognize the difference in the OT and NT covenant when it comes to the work of the Spirit.

Actually, i think i have a pretty good handle on comparing Pentecost with the glory of the Lord that came down on the tabernacle ( see article). -- Herb Evans

To borrow your very worn out cliché, that is comparing apples to oranges. Differ epoch altogether. The church is now filled with the Spirit because they have been immersed in the Spirit/sealed with the Spirit.

Well, you have opened up a new can of worms, seemingly advocating a church of all believers. I rcognize only a local church in scripture, whether O.T. or N.T. -- Hreb Evans