To avoid going of on a tangent on the Baptism of Fire topic, which I think is going on very well, I have learn’t heaps from that study.

I thought I would bring the discussion of Pentecostalism , or rather the view of what the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is over here to be discussed.

Joe brought up some interesting thoughts in his last posting on baptism of fire, to quote.

My reference to the Pentecostals was due to my association with them. I was a Pentecostal for several years and the church that I did go to did teach that tongues are the initial evidence. That is the genereal line of the AOG church (the church I belonged to), though I know there are a few within that church that are thinking otherwise and no longer see it as the initial evidence. I personally have no problem if people do believe that speaking in tongues is still possible today, though I have personally changed my view on that. My problem, while within the Pentecostals, was the belief that not all Christians were baptised with the Holy Spirit only those that spoke in tongues. For me baptism of the Holy Spirit is associated with salvation. Matthew 3 I believe suggests that as seen by John linking the baptism of fire with judgment and also by the fact that I favour a more of an eschatological outlook in regards to that text. Therefore for me, to say that not all Christians are baptised in the Holy Spirit, is much the same as saying a person is not saved. Though I know that is not what Pentecostals intend to mean in their understanding of that doctrine.

I answered with the question,

Going on the other tangent of Pentecostal thought, Paul says go on being filled with the Holy Spirit in Ephesians. Do you think it is possible that some are filled more than others with the Spirit of God?

What do we really think the Baptism of the Holy spirit is?

craig

Good evening Craig,

You wrote

What do we really think the Baptism of the Holy spirit is?

Since we have One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism as taught in Eph 4:5
and we are taught to baptise in the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit; if this happens, how can we expect a second baptism; it is bound up in the first.

Going on the other tangent of Pentecostal thought, Paul says go on being filled with the Holy Spirit in Ephesians. Do you think it is possible that some are filled more than others with the Spirit of God?

The Greek language generally has the thought of continuing action.  I’m no Greek scholar (no Engish one either) however I think this is what commentators refer to an ‘aorist’ verb.  Putting all that aside, I believe the trouble with us (me anyway) is that we leak.  So we need to be ‘being filled’ continuously.
In addition to this I believe there are two other things that affect our fullness of Spirit.  One is the soverign choice of God.  If He wants me to be a 21st century Paul I will need a greater measure than I have at present.
The second one is the affect our walk of obedience has on our measure.
If we walk in good fidelity with Christ we can expect to bear much fruit of the Spirit.  If we are cool or casual in our walk then we will bear less fruit.

Paul tells us not to ‘quench the Spirit’ therefore we can.  Paul tells not to ‘grieve’ the Spirit; therefore we can.

All these things contribute to some Christians showing more evidence than others of the indwelling Holy Spirit which can be taken to be a greater filling.

Or so I understand.

Doug

I think in Ephesians Paul is thinking more corporately than individually. He doesn’t appear to be addressing whether a person can be more spiritual filled than someone else. His concern more so, is that they are “built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his spirit” (Eph 2:22). When he tells the congregation “be filled with the spirit” (Eph 5:18) Paul is speaking in the present tense therefore is suggesting, I believe, that being filled in the spirit is an ongoing process. But we should always think corporately not individually. Each indvidual therefore plays some part within the body and his/her gifts are significant within this context. Outside this context these gifts are useless. Take tongues for example, Paul basically says that tongues are meaningless if they do not benefit the body. They may edify the individual, but so what. Therefore, it doesn’t go to show that if a person can speak in tongues more than someone else that person is more spirit-filled. The responsibility of the person is in regards to the rest of the body. This example includes all gifts. If a person uses a gift for the self, then I believe that person has failed “the body of Christ” therefore is not fullfulling what it means to be spirit-filled. A person can only function as a spirit-filled person within the context of the body.

And just as everyone is responsible to the body, everyone is dependent on the body. No one is greater within the context of the body or is more spirit-filled within the context of the body. Therefore, all gifts the spirit-filled person may have is not only useless, but incomplete unless within the context of the body. Each person is dependent on someone else, eliminating the view that one person can be more spiritually filled than someone else.

That is why it is significant, when Paul says in Ephesians 5:18 “be filled with the spirit” he immediately continues, “speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (v. 19). The keyword here being “one another.”

G’day Joe blessings.

I think it would be fair to say that ,

“in the body of Christ, that if as individuals we are filled with the Spirit to a greater degree, the corporate body would be also, on the reverse side of the coin, if the individuals of the body are quenching the Spirit or grieving him or not being filled by him, the corporate body is weakened likewise”

I think it is fair to read Ephesians to us as individuals as well as taking it’s meaning as being addressed to the body.

Paul says “ I wish all spoke in tongues and commands against the forbidding of such. ( I wonder if teaching against the gift of tongues comes into that catogory?) Not aimed at you or any one else

Actually as to the tongues issue which I believe is seperate to the Baptism of Holy Spirit issue, Paul speak of 5 different types of tongues.

1. Known languages supernaturally learn’t
2. Public tongues which require the gift of interpretation - therefore a corporate gift to be used in the body.
3. Individual gift of tongues - personal prayer language which is of great benifit as Paul says this type of gift is for the edifying of the individual.
4. Angelic languages
5. Sorry brain is a bit fuzzy I have forgotton, I will get back to you with this one later. It may actually have to do with singin gin the spirit.

All i know is that if God has a gift for us, then all gifts are good and proper to use and to desire. I think sometimes we in the west need to use our brains to understand something to much, perhaps the gift of tongues is to bypass our heads into our hearts.

My self, I often find that by praying in tongues, the Lord will give me a burden to pray for someone, or the knowledge in how to pray specifically for some one or something.

Now by me praying in tongues and being inspired to pray boldly and effiecently in prayer does that not help the body corporate?

back on track now, perhaps we need to go on another topic on gifts.

Doug you wrote,

Since we have One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism as taught in Eph 4:5

I have been thinking lately about the churches Paul has addressed his letters to, as far as I know all have experienced some kind of outpouring of Gods Spirit in a powerfull way to which we could call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures say that no one can call Jesus Lord except though the Holy Spirit - eg the convicting work as recorded by John, seeing as Paul is talking to a church whose experience of the Holy Spirit could be different than our experience perhaps the baptism or empowering is different than salvation. I do say perhaps.

craig