The promise of the Holy Spirit

[Lamb]

In Acts 2:38 we're told that when we are baptized that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise made by God to us is solid proof that believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. We know that a believer cannot say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit, so that when faith is given in order to believe, that person does have the Holy Spirit. But the promise connected in baptism is something we can look to and trust in knowing God wouldn't lie to us. He makes promises and He delivers on those promises.

I was baptized at the age of 4 and remember it, but there are many who are baptized as infants. They can still trust in the promise that the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to them even if they don't remember that God had worked through those waters in their baptism.

God is a giver. He wants to bless us!

 

[Frankj]

Acts 8:16 These people had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but the Holy Spirit had not yet come down on any of them. This is why Peter and John prayed. (ERV)

This has always made me wonder, it indicates that being Baptized in the name of the Lord does not necessarily mean receiving the Holy Spirit as a direct and immediate result.

Have you ever seen what I have seen where people come forward and are baptized in the emotional heat of the moment at some evangelical mass event but never seem to have anything other than a momentary experience with no lasting change in their lives?

I consider the parable of the sower in this respect, some people 'miss the boat' because they simply do not have the initial spiritual preparation and grounding to be fertile soil for the Spirit yet.

This is my way of understanding it, I don't propose it as an absolute truth.

 

[Lamb]

Acts 8:16 These people had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but the Holy Spirit had not yet come down on any of them. This is why Peter and John prayed. (ERV)

This has always made me wonder, it indicates that being Baptized in the name of the Lord does not necessarily mean receiving the Holy Spirit as a direct and immediate result.

Have you ever seen what I have seen where people come forward and are baptized in the emotional heat of the moment at some evangelical mass event but never seem to have anything other than a momentary experience with no lasting change in their lives?

I consider the parable of the sower in this respect, some people 'miss the boat' because they simply do not have the initial spiritual preparation and grounding to be fertile soil for the Spirit yet.

This is my way of understanding it, I don't propose it as an absolute truth.

I've read that it was necessary to happen in that manner so that the Jews could see that baptism wasn't just for them.

Baptism is God's work, that's the point of Acts 2:38. Look at all the promises He makes that occur in our baptism.

You bring up something I don't witness, being a Lutheran, where people come forward out of some emotional reason in order to have an experience. Y

You also bring up something where you look to the person to know whether God is active in their lives, when you don't know the heart, nor do you know all the things the Holy Spirit is doing in that person that you don't see happening. It's the job of the Holy Spirit to sanctify us and He does so in His timing. You'll still see believers committing sin, because we live in these sinful bodies. But that doesn't negate the fact that God is at work in baptism...He promised that He is, so we should believe Him.

 

[Frankj]

Lamb, I too was baptized as a Lutheran back when I was around 6 or 7 by the pastor of the Lutheran Church I was raised in (American Lutheran, eventually absorbed into the ELCA). I also went through Catechism in that Church and became a member of it.

I know the Lutheran belief that Baptism is and act of the Holy Spirit and independent of the ones conducting the ceremony, I had a Lutheran Pastor explain this to me that it doesn't make any difference it is done by a man or woman or a homosexual or lesbian pastor (I imagine that would include transvestite now) or a non believer it is an equally valid Baptism.

But that doesn't explain that Baptism without the coming of the Holy Spirit in Samaria that is mentioned in Acts.

Or the fact that I have seen people baptized with no change at all in their lives, I consider that while the heart of someone may not be visible to us the fruit of it most certainly should be in their actions and lives. Jesus did teach that it is the things that originate within us and go outward into the world that either justify or defile us.



So I still wonder about these things and whether or not one can actually have the Holy Spirit, the third person of God, within him with no outward evidence of it.

 

[Lamb]

Lamb, I too was baptized as a Lutheran back when I was around 6 or 7 by the pastor of the Lutheran Church I was raised in (American Lutheran, eventually absorbed into the ELCA). I also went through Catechism in that Church and became a member of it.

I know the Lutheran belief that Baptism is and act of the Holy Spirit and independent of the ones conducting the ceremony, I had a Lutheran Pastor explain this to me that it doesn't make any difference it is done by a man or woman or a homosexual or lesbian pastor (I imagine that would include transvestite now) or a non believer it is an equally valid Baptism.

But that doesn't explain that Baptism without the coming of the Holy Spirit in Samaria that is mentioned in Acts.

Or the fact that I have seen people baptized with no change at all in their lives, I consider that while the heart of someone may not be visible to us the fruit of it most certainly should be in their actions and lives. Jesus did teach that it is the things that originate within us and go outward into the world that either justify or defile us.



So I still wonder about these things and whether or not one can actually have the Holy Spirit, the third person of God, within him with no outward evidence of it.

I explained one reason for the delay in the book of Acts. It was God's way of showing the Jews that baptism wasn't just for them. It gave them absolute proof that it was for the entire world, and for their children too.

Since you said you were brought up Lutheran, then you should also know that mankind can reject God and His gifts. That doesn't mean the baptism didn't work, because it's not God's fault, but man's if they reject Him. And, if they later in life repented and returned to God, they don't need to redo a baptism, because God did it right the first time.

You do know that God works in His own timing and not ours, right?

 

[Frankj]

I explained one reason for the delay in the book of Acts. It was God's way of showing the Jews that baptism wasn't just for them. It gave them absolute proof that it was for the entire world, and for their children too.

Since you said you were brought up Lutheran, then you should also know that mankind can reject God and His gifts. That doesn't mean the baptism didn't work, because it's not God's fault, but man's if they reject Him. And, if they later in life repented and returned to God, they don't need to redo a baptism, because God did it right the first time.

You do know that God works in His own timing and not ours, right?

Man makes many explanations for what is done in the Bible accounts, but I always like to examine the arguments, preferably in a Biblical context, behind those reasons as well as the reasoning against them.

So what would be the reasoning behind the delay being a work of God to show the Jews they weren't exclusive in their practices and what arguments against that idea did you consider while determining that?

 

[Lamb]

Man makes many explanations for what is done in the Bible accounts, but I always like to examine the arguments, preferably in a Biblical context, behind those reasons as well as the reasoning against them.

So what would be the reasoning behind the delay being a work of God to show the Jews they weren't exclusive in their practices and what arguments against that idea did you consider while determining that?

You could look at the history of the Samaritans and the Jews. There was a lot of hatred between them, and this brought a unity that Christianity does to make us all brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Frankj]

You could look at the history of the Samaritans and the Jews. There was a lot of hatred between them, and this brought a unity that Christianity does to make us all brothers and sisters in Christ.

But is that what happened, and what indicates that this was it's purpose?

I see a great deal of dissention and disconnection in the early Church, not unification as brothers and sisters in Christ. In revelation it seems they were quite different from one another in their beliefs and practices (and I don't see any of them as being Samaritan who don't seem to be a part of it as such).

(This is something I still see in strong evidence in today's world)

 

[Lamb]

But is that what happened, and what indicates that this was it's purpose?

I see a great deal of dissention and disconnection in the early Church, not unification as brothers and sisters in Christ. In revelation it seems they were quite different from one another in their beliefs and practices (and I don't see any of them as being Samaritan who don't seem to be a part of it as such).

(This is something I still see in strong evidence in today's world)

Wasn't the point in unity that all believe that Jesus died for their forgiveness of sins? The Savior was for all and so was the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. No matter what other minor things the early church members believed, they all had that in common.

 

[Frankj]

Wasn't the point in unity that all believe that Jesus died for their forgiveness of sins? The Savior was for all and so was the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. No matter what other minor things the early church members believed, they all had that in common.

Actually, concerning baptism, the early Church was more of a mind that the Holy Spirit was a sort of two part thing where there was the water baptism itself as a precursor to the receiving the Holy Spirit which came with the laying on of hands and was evidenced by speaking in tongues.

But there are also scriptures that indicate the Holy Spirit can come before baptism making the baptism irrelevant in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon someone,

So I still wonder about such things, and have not accepted any single doctrine exclusive of all others regarding them.

 

[Lamb]

Actually, concerning baptism, the early Church was more of a mind that the Holy Spirit was a sort of two part thing where there was the water baptism itself as a precursor to the receiving the Holy Spirit which came with the laying on of hands and was evidenced by speaking in tongues.

But there are also scriptures that indicate the Holy Spirit can come before baptism making the baptism irrelevant in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon someone,

So I still wonder about such things, and have not accepted any single doctrine exclusive of all others regarding them.

The early church fathers did not believe in two baptisms. The Holy Spirit comes with faith, and that can be before baptism, but there is only one baptism.

 

[Frankj]

The early church fathers did not believe in two baptisms. The Holy Spirit comes with faith, and that can be before baptism, but there is only one baptism.

what scripture are you basing that on, and which scripture that suggests differently do you counter with it?

BTW, it isn't 'two baptisms' as such but two parts of baptism, the water baptism first followed by the laying on of hands as shown in scripture where it is that laying on of hands that actually fulfills the promise of the Holy Spirit and not the water baptism part. (this is stating it simplistically since the early Church tended to do all sorts of preparatory activities for the water baptism indicating it was much more to them than just a simple immersion in water involved)

 

[Lamb]

what scripture are you basing that on, and which scripture that suggests differently do you counter with it?

BTW, it isn't 'two baptisms' as such but two parts of baptism, the water baptism first followed by the laying on of hands as shown in scripture where it is that laying on of hands that actually fulfills the promise of the Holy Spirit and not the water baptism part. (this is stating it simplistically since the early Church tended to do all sorts of preparatory activities for the water baptism indicating it was much more to them than just a simple immersion in water involved)

I'll post some early church father quotes tomorrow when I get a chance.

But this movement of having a separate baptism later on is more of a modern thing. It's not what the early church believed. The disciples believed in one baptism and it consisted of water and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. That's why they were shocked that the people hadn't received the gift of the Holy Spirit, because that's what was supposed to happen.

 

[Frankj]

I'll post some early church father quotes tomorrow when I get a chance.

But this movement of having a separate baptism later on is more of a modern thing. It's not what the early church believed. The disciples believed in one baptism and it consisted of water and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. That's why they were shocked that the people hadn't received the gift of the Holy Spirit, because that's what was supposed to happen.

I'll look forward to your post, and I hope they are from the church fathers from the earlier half of the first century who either had direct contact with Jesus or were closely associated with those who did.

When I look at the scriptures I find examples of the Holy Spirit being received without baptism at all involved, baptism alone not endowing the baptized with the holy spirit, and baptism by water not bringing the Holy Spirit unless followed by the laying on of hands by one who has already received it.

My real questions are centered around whether or not one can actually have received the Holy Spirit when there is absolutely no change in their lives afterward showing anything different about them.

Consider that Jesus talked of being recognized by the fruits and immediately went on to say that not everyone calling him Lord would enter heaven even thought they performed works of healing, prophecy and miracles.

I know that I'm asking for scripture but I'm really more interested in why you believe as you believe and how you have come to believe the specific way you do, what you have seen in others that leads you to believe this is true.

This may seem unimportant, and maybe it is, but it is important to me since I believe we are in the age of deceit and many seemingly righteous people are among the deceived and unknowingly passing on false doctrine. I am always searching myself for false beliefs that may (and probably have) crept into my thinking and find the experience of others crucial in this respect.

 

[Lamb]

I'll look forward to your post, and I hope they are from the church fathers from the earlier half of the first century who either had direct contact with Jesus or were closely associated with those who did.

When I look at the scriptures I find examples of the Holy Spirit being received without baptism at all involved, baptism alone not endowing the baptized with the holy spirit, and baptism by water not bringing the Holy Spirit unless followed by the laying on of hands by one who has already received it.

My real questions are centered around whether or not one can actually have received the Holy Spirit when there is absolutely no change in their lives afterward showing anything different about them.

Consider that Jesus talked of being recognized by the fruits and immediately went on to say that not everyone calling him Lord would enter heaven even thought they performed works of healing, prophecy and miracles.

I know that I'm asking for scripture but I'm really more interested in why you believe as you believe and how you have come to believe the specific way you do, what you have seen in others that leads you to believe this is true.

This may seem unimportant, and maybe it is, but it is important to me since I believe we are in the age of deceit and many seemingly righteous people are among the deceived and unknowingly passing on false doctrine. I am always searching myself for false beliefs that may (and probably have) crept into my thinking and find the experience of others crucial in this respect.

Acts 2:38 states very clearly that in baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I encourage you to re-read what I've written above about the Holy Spirit entering man when he comes to faith. I think you missed that portion of my post.

And you've mentioned again about looking to people to see if they've changed after baptism. I've told you that people can reject our Lord, even if they're baptized. And then again, those people could repent and turn back to God later in life, but his baptism is still valid. God knows what He's doing.

Here are some church fathers and statements concerning baptism/spirit:

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217​

Thus also we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins which obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eye of the spirit free, unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine, the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above.

Aphraahat the Persian Sage​

“From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit” (Treatises 6:14:4 [A.D. 340]).

Augustine

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”—Justin Martr, First Apology 61 Date: 151 A.D.

Origen

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” —Irenaeus, Fragment 34 Date: 190 A.D.

 

[Can't think of a name]

A water baptism without the baptism of the holy spirit is useless and meaningless. God has to be realised as real in a person's life. You could have a million water baptisms and no baptism of the spirit and it wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Lamb]

A water baptism without the baptism of the holy spirit is useless and meaningless. God has to be realised as real in a person's life. You could have a million water baptisms and no baptism of the spirit and it wouldn't change a thing.

Jesus instituted baptism. It will never be empty or useless.

 

[Frankj]

With so many denominations insisting that their Baptism is the only correct one to the extent that you must be baptized in their Church to be a member of it with some of them, how does one know what the correct baptism is? Keep in mind that each fully believes they are the right ones with the right baptism.

Do you believe that you, as a Christian, are able to conduct a valid baptism or do you believe it has to be done by authorized clergy? I've seen different views and beliefs regarding this.

 

[Can't think of a name]

Jesus instituted baptism. It will never be empty or useless.

Water baptism does not save. The baptism by the Spirit saves.

 

[Lamb]

With so many denominations insisting that their Baptism is the only correct one to the extent that you must be baptized in their Church to be a member of it with some of them, how does one know what the correct baptism is? Keep in mind that each fully believes they are the right ones with the right baptism.

Do you believe that you, as a Christian, are able to conduct a valid baptism or do you believe it has to be done by authorized clergy? I've seen different views and beliefs regarding this.

This was the prototype of our own baptism, with the receiving of the Holy Spirit:

The baptism of Jesus. "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, [and] coming upon Him," (Matthew 3:16, NASB).


The Old Testament:
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:25-27, NASB).

Baptism can be done by anyone because it's God who is doing the actual work, using the hands of man and the water that He attaches the promises to.

Water baptism does not save. The baptism by the Spirit saves.

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," (Titus 3:5, NASB).

That's baptism. There is but one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,