Baptism of the Holy Spirit

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
verbatim
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by verbatim » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:19 am

Let us study why believers does not received the gift or baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus)

Reason is because they were only baptized in name of Lord Jesus. What more is missing?

Believers did not received the gift of Holy Spirit because they were baptized only in the name of historical Jesus and not in the glorified name of Jesus Christ.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter said, Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ…not in the name of Lord Jesus only…but in the name of Jesus Christ which have a very big distinction.

What is the gitt of Holy Spirit that a believer should receive according to Jesus teaching in:
John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his
belly shall flow rivers of living water.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
__________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

verbatim
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by verbatim » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:51 am

Homer wrote:
Before I reply, I would like to know your position regarding the following:
The first thing that ought to be established is what the "tongues" spoken today are. There seems to be a variety of definitions among modern Charismatics/Pentecostals. For the sake of this discussion, a few word definitions must be made.

1. Akolalia: a speaker speaks in one language and the hearer hears in his own language (or one he understands)

2. Glossolalia: a speaker speaks in a language that has no correspondence to a known language

3. Xenolalia: a speaker speaks in a known (foreign) language unknown to him


The quote is from a thread I initiated about 2 1/2 years ago:

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=3204
This is a question of Homer to Paidion and I’m pleased to share my opinon related to the query if what kind of speaking in tongues really occur during Pentecost.

Perhaps nothing of the above definition would fit the languages that the apostles received which were also heard afterwards by men present with them on that time.

First the Scripture is written and composed of many analogy and speaking in tongue is a figure of speech because no man was born with knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or any native language
So the first languahe a man could speak is the similar to language in Genesis 11:1 And
the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Regards.
__________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by Paidion » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:23 pm

Verbatim wrote:Let us study why believers does not received the gift or baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of theLord Jesus)
There is actually a word in Act 8:16 which has not been translated at all in most versions. Indeed, I have found only two translations which translate it: Rotherham's Translation, and the Concord Version. The word is "ὑπηρχον". In lexical form it literally means "to begin from below", or perhaps simply "to begin".

Here is perhaps the most literal translation of Acts 8:16. In Greek double negatives were used, but the English translations remove one of the negatives to make it better English.

For it [the Holy Spirit] was not yet fallen upon none of them, but only after being baptized they were beginning from below in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here is my understanding as to why these Samaritans had been received the Spirit. They had been baptized by Jesus' disciples in the days in which Jesus was with them. By being baptized as disciples of Jesus and following Him, they had made a "beginning from below." Below what? Below or before the New Covenant was fully established on that special day of Pentecost after Jesus was raised from the dead. After that special day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given, the words of Peter in Acts 2:38 took effect, so that when people after that repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus with the goal of the forsaking of their sins, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. But these Samaritan disciples were baptized while Jesus still lived, and BEFORE the Holy Spirit was given, so there had to come a time in their lives when they received the Holy Spirit.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

verbatim
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by verbatim » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:59 pm

Hi Paidion,
Well, What I can say about your finding and interpretation is good and I need not comment on it as it was written that God see all his works are very good.

The Holy Spirit being the author of Scripture let the fieldgrew both the herb and grass which was the work devil to sow confusion among men.

As a continuation of my proposal to study on why those who were baptized in the name of Lord Jesus did not received the Holy Spirit, I suggest that you search the Scripture when did Jesus disciples and start using or calling the name of Lord Jesus to “Jesus Christ” and you will discover that they applied it to him after his ascension, which meant on the time he was already glorified.

Before Jesus was crucify he tell us’ Take my yok upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.(Matt 11:29)
He also promise that I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; and shall teach
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you and he shall testify of me:(Acts 14:26)
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:12-15

Those many things he mentioned refer to John 7:38-39 about the (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So, If the spirit that dwell in a believer did not teach you how to glorify or praise and exult the name of Jesus Christ, maybe that spirit is not yet Christened or did not come from thy Father.

Regards.
__________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by Homer » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:28 pm

Paidion, et al,

Here are some thoughts for your consideration.

The Greek word glossa, translated "tongue", can mean the literal tongue or by implication "language". In determining whether the language in 1 Corinthians 14 means "glossolalia" or "xenolalia", there are several points to consider, while bearing in mind Paul gives no indication he uses both meanings in the same context.

1 Corinthians 14, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1. Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

The question here is whether the person speaking in a language in v.2 is speaking in an actual foreign language (xenolalia) or an unknown (by anyone) language (glossolalia). I do not see that the text in verse 2 necessarily means "no one understands" in an absolute sense, i.e., that it means the speaker himself does not know what he is saying. Notice that the one who prophesies is said to be greater than the one who speaks in a language unless he interprets, in which case they are apparently equal. Also notice that receiving edification depends on the translation of the words so that they can be understood. No understanding, no edification. This is also made clear in vs.16-17:

16. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17. For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

Thus we see that the man speaking in v.2 does understand what he is saying because he is edified by what he says, which indicates xenolalia. He is hindered in edifying others by an inability to translate into their language. (Note: in v.1 "gifts" is not in the Greek text; it could be translated spiritual things.

13. Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Does the person praying in a tongue (language) know himself what he is saying? Paul says in the same letter:

1 Corinthians 2:11, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.


So the man's spirit is said to know the thoughts of the man. The man's spirit does not function apart from his thoughts.

(back to 1 Corinthians 14)

15. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

And v.16 at least implies there are some who are able to understand. The NIV (1984) translates v.16 as follows:

16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

(back to NASB)
17. For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19. however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.


So Paul knows that he speaks languages more than all of them. It is worth noting that while the translation has Paul saying "I speak in tongues more...", the prepostion en (in) is not in the Greek text, and could be translated "I speak more languages". So which is correct? And does Paul have in mind the amount of time or number of "tongues" spoken? If Paul has in mind glossolalia, or ecstatic speach, how would he know he spent more time at it than others, particularly if they were "in their closet"? And if Paul means the number of kinds, is there more than one? And if so, wouldn't he need to be able to interpret and categorize them all? But if Paul has languages in mind it would be easy for him to discover whether they were as multilingual as he. Paul likely spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Syriac and Latin, so it would not be difficult to determine what languages the Corinthians spoke.

Interestingly, linguists have recorded a great number of both public and private glosslalia of European, American, Puerto Rican, Russian, Mexican, and Mayan Christians, and non-Christians of Borneo, Indonesia, Japan, and Africa. What they discovered in analyzing the glossolalia was that there is no distinction in any of them, Christian or non-Christian. All are composed of syllables made up of sounds known to the speaker.


20. Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21. In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.


Here in v.22 Paul says that tongues are for a sign but the reference in v.21 is from Isaiah 28:11, clearly a foreign language. I do not see how glossa can mean glossolalia throughout chapter 14, and there is no indication by Paul that he uses the word in two very different ways; there is no indication of an abrupt change.

26. What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28. but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

The person must not speak unless there is someone capable of interpreting what he is going to say. How could he know this for sure if glossolalia, or ecstatic speech, is in mind? If he speaks a foreign language unknown to many present, he could know for sure if someone was present who could interpret what he says.
Last edited by Homer on Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:12 pm, edited 5 times in total.

verbatim
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by verbatim » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:09 pm

Tf we will trace where speaking in tongues originated we could find its root in Acts 2:2-4 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Homer wrote:
The Greek word glossa, translated "tongue", can mean the literal tongue or by implication "language". In determining whether the language in 1 Corinthians 14 means "glossolalia" or "xenolalia", there are several points to consider, while bearing in mind Paul gives no indication he uses both meanings in the same context.
What the disciples experienced during Pentecost is like a visionary and auditory figure of speech without any relation to glossolalia or xenolalia speaking in tongue because he Holy Spirit will not each them such knowledge because it will not be in accord with the teahing of Jesus in;
John 16:13-15 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he
will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


I think perhaps the confusion started in misinterpretation of following passages Acts 2:6-8 especially in verse 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ?

quote]Act 2:6-8 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

From verse 9-11 there are almost 16 country mentioned but Latin, Hebrew or Greeks language are not among them. And can you find a man on earth knows his country’s own language upon his birth?
__________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:59 am

Hoping for any scriptural rebuttal of my last post. If I am wrong in my understanding of 1 Corinthians 14 please show where. Thanks

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:12 pm

I will rebut the following statement for you:
It is worth noting that while the translation has Paul saying "I speak in tongues more...", the prepostion en (in) is not in the Greek text, and could be translated "I speak more languages".
While it is true that "en" is not used in the Greek, the word γλωσσα ("tongues" or "languages") is in the dative case, and is therefore properly translated as "in tongues". If Paul had meant "speak more languages" then γλωσσα would have to be in the accusative case.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by steve » Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Hi Homer,

Would Paul be saying that he is fluent in a larger number of languages than were known by the entire congregation in Corinth? Since Greek was the first language of most of them, and some of them spoke Hebrew (being Jews), and all would certainly have known some Latin (being in a Gentile city), and some would probably know local dialects from various locations from which they might have migrated to Corinth (as Pricilla and Aquila had)...in how many languages do you suggest Paul was fluent?

The idea that a man must understand his own utterance because it edifies him is a non-sequitur. Likewise, your statement that the spirit does not operate separately from the mind seems to disagree with Paul's own statement that his spirit can pray while his understanding remains unfruitful. You are defending a weak thesis by appeal to groundless assumptions.

If a man must pray for the ability to be given to him to interpret his own language (v.13), it would seem that he was not naturally bi-lingual, and needed supernatural ability to understand his own utterance. This would suggest either that the language he was speaking was unknown to him or else that the language into which he wished to translate was unknown to him. Perhaps you are allowing for the existence of a supernatural gift of interpretation, but not a supernatural gift of tongues?

How is it that your theory fits anything in Paul's comments or his flow of thought?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:05 pm

Hi Steve,

You wrote:
The idea that a man must understand his own utterance because it edifies him is a non-sequitur.
But how is this so? Paul plainly indicates edification comes from understanding what is said. Apparently this is the universal case with those who hear the speaker but somehow this is unnecessary for the speaker himself? How would that work? It would seem that the mere act itself of vocalizing unintelligibly builds the person up. Without understanding there is nothing else left than this, which seems to fit the definition of a sacramental act, and I never thought of you as being sacramental (although being filled with the spirit through the the laying on of hands seems sacramental also).
Likewise, your statement that the spirit does not operate separately from the mind seems to disagree with Paul's own statement that his spirit can pray while his understanding remains unfruitful.


And here is where I see my "theory" fits Paul's comments and flow of thought:

1 Corinthians 14:8-15
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8. For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle 9. So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. 11. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. 12. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

13. Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.


It seems clear to me that in v. 8-12 Paul is saying that uninterpreted tongues do not edify. The "therefore" of v.13 connects v. 8-12 with v. 13-15. His mind is unfruitful because none who hear him understand. His mind being unfruitful does not necessarily mean he has no idea what he is saying, it is a reference to others, his hearers.
If a man must pray for the ability to be given to him to interpret his own language (v.13), it would seem that he was not naturally bi-lingual, and needed supernatural ability to understand his own utterance. This would suggest either that the language he was speaking was unknown to him or else that the language into which he wished to translate was unknown to him. Perhaps you are allowing for the existence of a supernatural gift of interpretation, but not a supernatural gift of tongues?
As a teen I studied Spanish for three years. I was so immersed in it that I actually found myself thinking in Spanish. I certainly could have prayed in Spanish had I wished to. Yet I could not carry on a conversation with the numerous Mexican kids I went to school with. They spoke so fluidly and fast.If one of them could not speak English I would have needed a translator to say very much to him. Being a very good translator is a gift, easily recognized as such if you listen to translators at the UN, for example.

I am curious how you think Paul knew he spoke in tongues more than all of them, according to your theory, especially since he was not present when he wrote the letter? If you see it as the total of all the Corinthians, that could be a great amount of time, leaving time for little else, especially since he worked to support himself.

I am not concerned in this discussion whether God might enable someone to speak in a foreign language without learning it. My interest at this point is whether the tongues in 1 Corinthians are glossolalia or xenolalia as in the book of Acts and the understanding of the early church.
You are defending a weak thesis by appeal to groundless assumptions.
The 1 Corinthians issue with tongues is not easily understood as numerous commentators opinions attest. Whether my assumptions or yours are groundless is a matter of opinion.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”