Greetings!
I would like to point out that technically speaking I believe that the baptism with
the Holy Spirit places a person into the body of Christ. Those who were baptized
with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) were already saved. When their baptism
with the Holy Spirit occurred that is when the New Testament church began.
All who are in the body of Christ have been baptized with the Holy Spirit. All who
have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit are not in the body of Christ.
Since Acts 10:45 and 11:16 both describe what took place with the Gentiles (Acts
10:45 -> pouring = Acts 11:16 -> baptism with the Holy Spirit) why do you claim that
the baptism with the Holy Spirit no longer occurs when according to Titus 3:6 the
Holy Spirit has been "poured" (Holy Spirit: pouring = baptism) on all who are Christians?
Marc,
If you believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is what places a person in Christ then you would have to say that you believe Holy Spirit baptism is necessary for salvation. So, if I profess faith in Christ but I deny that I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit would you then say that I am not saved? If not, why not.
Who are you referring to as "those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5)"?
We agree that the church began in Acts 2 and that Jesus said the baptism of the Holy Spirit would signify its beginning (Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). However, where does it say that Holy Spirit baptism is the means by which people would enter into the Kingdom (cf. Matt. 16:18, 19)?
I will reply to your questions shortly.
Thanks,
Norm
Reply to this
1. Before the NT church began (Acts 2:4) those who were saved (i.e. Abraham, Noah, etc.) were not baptized with the Holy Spirit so the baptism with the Holy Spirit was not necessary for their salvation. From Acts 2:4 onward if a person was not baptized with the Holy Spirit then they were not in Christ.
2. Those who were baptized with the Holy Spirit refers to about 120 people (Acts 1:15).
3. Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:16 coupled with Titus 3:6 demonstrates that when a person is Holy Spirit baptized they enter into the NT church (Christ's body).
Questions for Norm:
1. Any person that has had the Holy Spirit poured out on them (Titus 3:6) is saved. True or False? (Explain).
2. Since the Holy Spirit was poured on the Gentiles (Acts 10:45) that is the same thing as saying they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16). True or False? (Explain).
Reply to this
Marc,
First let me answer the questions you put to me and then I will reply to the answers you gave to my questions.
Question 1: False
Question 2: False
Now I will reply to your answers to my questions:
I didn’t ask you about Abraham, Noah, etc. I asked if you would assert that I am lost because I deny that I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. According to your statement concerning the necessity of Holy Spirit baptism you would have to express your statement to its fullest extent by saying that anyone who denies the baptism of the Holy Spirit for people today are lost. So, I will ask you again, if Holy Spirit baptism is essential to salvation and I deny that I have been baptized in the Holy Spirit wouldn’t you have to say that I am not saved? If not, why not? If you are saying that I can be saved without Holy Spirit baptism then does that mean a person can be saved without being in the body of Christ? You said that a person is added to the body of Christ by being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I deny that. So, wouldn’t that mean that you believe I am not in the body of Christ? If not, why not? Holy Spirit baptism is either essential or it is not, which is it?
Please explain, being an English teacher, how you reach your conclusion that the “they” of Acts 2:1 is the 120 of Acts 1:15. Isn’t the rule for identifying pronouns to trace it back to its nearest antecedent? If you trace “they” in Acts 2:1 back to Acts 1:15 then you have had to ignore a reference to the apostles in Acts 1:26, the verse immediately prior to Acts 2:1. You only have to go back one verse to identify “they” as the apostles! Not only that but look at all the references to the apostles between Acts 1:15 and 1:25. Tracing back from 1:26: “Matthias ... numbered with the eleven apostles;” “apostleship” (25); “his [Judas’] office” (20); “this ministry [apostleship]” (17). That’s four explicit references to the apostles and the apostolic office before you get to the only reference to the 120 disciples in verse 15. Is that good grammar (Greek or English)? I think not! Notice also all the references to those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues in chapter 2. Moving forward from 2:1: “they” (1); “they” (2); “them” (3); “they --- began to speak with other tongues” (4); “heard them speak” (6). Then in verse 8 all those who were speaking in tongues were identified as Galileans. Those Galileans were identified as “Peter ... with the eleven” in verse 14. Where is the reference to the 120 speaking in tongues, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit? For that matter, how far into the book of Acts do you have to go before you see any disciples other than the apostles working signs and wonders? (which would include speaking in tongues). This will become significant to our continues discussion so I will just allow you to point out that crucial point for everyone. Let me just ask you how you would grade a paper from one of your students who identified a pronoun the way you identified “they” in 2:1? For the sake of space, I will come back to this subject in another entry.
This post is already getting too long so I will come back to your third point about Acts 10:45; 11:16 and Titus 3:6 in another entry.
Reply to this
Norm, This post of yours seems to be truncated (???) Marc, First let me answer the questions you put to me and then I will reply to the answers you gave to my questions. Question 1: False First of all, I deny that Titus 3:6 is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as I will show in a later entry. I will also show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never intended for all disciples but only for those who are specifically mentioned as receiving it. Secondly, there is no verse that refers to Holy Spirit baptism being for salvation. I will demonstrate that the many references to “baptism” (not “Holy Spirit baptism”) in connection with salvation refers to water baptism. Question 2: False I realize that the Gentiles (Cornelius’ household) were baptized with the Holy Spirit, as stated in the text. However, you asked whether it was true or false that the term “poured out” was the same thing as saying they
Reply to this
I see the entire entry. Make sure you are looking at the correct one and not a draft.
Reply to this
1. You have not shown how Titus 3:6 is not referring to the baptism with the Holy Spirit for according to Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:16 to have the Spirit pour on you and to be baptized with the Spirit is the same thing.
2. Concerning Abraham and Noah you did state that my position is really that a person must be baptized with the Holy Spirit in order to be saved but these two (and countless others before the New Testament church began in Acts 2:4) prove this assertion is incorrect.
3. You believe the Gentiles even after being baptized with the Holy Spirit were still not saved. You insist that they needed something more. That is a perversion of the gospel. Therefore you do not hold to the gospel that God has already declared. Thus you are not saved.
4. Concerning the use of the pronoun in Acts 2:1 and how I would grade a paper....I would give the student an "A". There are such things as exceptions to the rule in grammar especially when we know that the author (in this case Luke) is not as grammatically stringent as you would like him to be. According to your inflexible rules of grammar we would have the Jews physically crucifying Christ on the cross instead of the Romans. Luke 23:26, 33 informs us that "they crucified Him" but according to Luke 23:13 and 25 the pronoun refers to the Jews.
I would also take into account that a lexicon also applies the baptism with the Holy Spirit to the 120 --> "...the Spirit was poured out on the 120 (1:15)..." (TDNT 6:413 - pneuma)
In fact, in 2 John 7 the nearest antecedent for the pronoun "houtos" refers back to Jesus Christ. I would like to ask Norm if Jesus Christ is the deceiver and the antichrist or is the pronoun to be taken more loosely so it refers to the many deceivers?
Reply to this
1. I said in my reply that I would address Titus 3:6 in another entry. Please forgive me for not addressing it as quickly as you would like.
Reply to this
--> Yes
And, since you assert that only those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit have entered into the body of Christ, your assertion is that Holy Spirit baptism is essential for salvation. We're not talking about what people had to do to be saved prior to the church being established.
--> Yes
--> Acts `10:45 and Acts 11:16 coupled with Titus 3:6
--> I have by the inflexible use of your grammar. I pointed to Luke chapter 23.
You completely ignored my request to show where anyone other than the apostles are referred to as demonstrating the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the context of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
--> The Gentiles in Acts 10 had the same miraculous manifesttation when they spoke in tongues.
I gave you the opportunity to identify the first time you see a disciple, other than the apostles, displaying a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the book of Acts. You did not do so.
--> Acts 10:46
I will tell you where it is. Please see Acts 6:8. Something very significant had just taken place prior to the record of Stephen's dong signs and wonders, please see Acts 6:6. Do you know that whenever you read of disciples demonstrating a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit it is the result of being given that power by the laying on of the apostles hands?
--> Did anyone lay hands on the Gentiles in Acts 10?
So, were the apostles baptizing people in the Holy Spirit or what this something else entirely?
--> Acts 1:5 says they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Where were the 120 during this time?
--> With the apostles. All of them were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
How is it that from Acts 6:8 we see disciples working signs and wonders but prior to that only the apostles?
--> That's how God chose to do it.
--> You would refer to Acts 1:15 as well as looking at how else Luke chooses to use the pronoun in a freer way.
There is only one reason I would see such in the text, that being if I already believed that all Christians received the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to reading the text and had my reading influenced by that preconceived notion.
--> I cite a Greek lexicon that agrees with me but you cite....yourself.
In other words, for me to get the 120 to be "Pentecostals" I have to let you help me misunderstand what it says. Please make your connection of the 120 from Acts 1:15 to the "they" of Acts 2:1 from a simple reading of the text and not some "mystical insight" into Luke's trouble with grammar. Actually, Luke is one of the more grammatically correct and technical writers of the New Testament, him being a doctor and all.
--> Funny because you skipped entirely over from commenting on Luke 23.
--> That is your commentary and not a definition.
Surely you can see the difference. I don't think I have ever read a commentary that didn't give definitions of the words in the original language as part of their analysis of the text. Does that mean they are all Lexicons.
--> No because they don't do so for every Greek word.
Likewise, I don't think I have ever seen a Lexicon that didn't also include commentary in association with the definition of the words.
--> Please supply the book, or perhaps you can write one of your own, that takes any of the Greek lexicons I have cited and divides them up between what the words really mean and what is commentary.
If you are going to claim Lexical authority for something then give the definitions and not the commentary.
--> If the lexicon agrees with you then "Hey, that's from a lexicon" but when they disagree with you then "Hey, that's a commentary".
Reply to this
MarkT...Your assertion that Luke 23:26,33 informs us that "they", being the Jews, crucified Christ is implying that the reader is incapable of understanding context and that God is a God of confusion...I reject your claims vehemently my friend...
Notice in 23:11, Herod AND HIS SOLDIERS sent Christ back to Pilate...Common sense tells us that Jesus was in the custody of Roman soldiers, not the Jews at this point of Luke 23.
In v16 we see Pilate say, "I will punish Him and release Him."...If Pilate was doing the punishing, wouldn't it be conceivable that his soldiers would carry this out? Or does the pronoun "I" refer to Pilate himself doing the crucifying?...senseless argument
In v17, we see that Pilate "was obliged to release to THEM (JEWS) at the feast one prisoner." So who, do tell, ended up being RELEASED to the Jews? Obviously, Barabbas...
In v18, the Jews "cried out...AWAY with this man..." Obviously Jesus would NOT have been in their custody would He? v18 cont'd...."release for us Barabbas."....It is a stretch to think "they", the Jews would ever have or desire to have Jesus in their custody at this point, much less be the actual "ones" who would carry out the punishment....
v20...Pilate desired to release Jesus....how could he release him if the Jews were in charge of Jesus? Your arguments don't make sense...
Then in v21 the JEWS shouted CRUCIFY, CRUCIFY him...were they shouting to themselves or to the Roman authorities who were holding Jesus? Again, COMMON SENSE tells us they weren't shouting to themselves to crucify Christ, that would be ridiculous. These shouts are obviously a directive to those who had power and authority to carry out this brutal form of crucifixion...
Notice in v25 that Pilate released Jesus "to their WILL", NOT to THEM...The Jews "voices had prevailed" (v23) and the WILL of the people had won the EXCHANGE of Barabbas for Christ
You point out "they" in v33 refers to the Jews, so did the Jews also crucify the other two malefactors?
v33 says "there they crucified him, and the malefactors,..." Of course not! The readers of Luke then and today KNOW who carried out the actual crucifixions and anyone that reads Luke 22-23 in its entirety has NO doubts who the "they" are in 23:26 and 33...
You make a weak case, using Luke 23 for your defense of pronoun usage in Acts 2:1...Anyone using common sense when reading the Scriptures you have pointed out can clearly see who the pronouns in question are modifying both in Acts and in Luke...
God is not a God of confusion but your attempt to portray His Word as such is despicable... to believe and teach a false doctrine such as Holy Spirit baptism today is as twisted as your defense thereof...
Repent MarkT...
Reply to this
In Luke 23:13-25 Pilate is addressing the Jews. Then in verse 26 it reads, "And when THEY led Him away" (emphasis mine). Now if one were to follow the inflexible use of pronouns the "they of verse 26 would have to refer to the Jews of verse 13.
Next time make sure you know what you are talking about before making such ridiculous assertions.
Reply to this
I know you know who actually physically performed the crucification, but for you to use the account from Luke to show inflexible uses of pronouns is somewhat absurd. You can't just THROW OUT context when reading Scripture or shakespear for that matter...
my POINT was anyone with common sense KNOWS beyond a doubt who the "they" is referring to in Luke 23 and the same "logic" you carelessly apply in comparison with the text from Acts quite possibly is the root of the underlying problems that prevent you from recognizing that only ONE Baptism exists today...that was the point...
Reply to this
TC wrote:
You make a weak case, using Luke 23 for your defense of pronoun usage in Acts 2:1...Anyone using common sense when reading the Scriptures you have pointed out can clearly see who the pronouns in question are modifying both in Acts and in Luke...
TC, I've been following this discussion between Norm and Marc, and your attack is unjustified! I can't believe Norm even allowed it!
However, to address a comment you made that I italicized above:
The same "common sense" you ask Marc to use is the same "common sense" I've been wanting to ask Norm to use. It's evidently clear that the "they" that initially referred to the 120 in Acts 1:15 is the same "they" in Acts 2:1. Let's look:
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren...
Immediately we see the "they" referring to the "Men and brethren". Verses 17 through 22 deals with the fulfillment of prophecy about Judas. It picks back up in verse 23:
23 And they (the men and brethren) appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they (the men and brethren) prayed...
26 And they (the men and brethren) gave forth their (the men and brethren) lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (NOT (the men and brethren).
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they (the men and brethren) were all with one accord in one place.
To say that the "they" of Acts 2:1 all of the sudden shifted to the "eleven Apostles" is just to simply ignore the context of some 10 verses. "They" conducted ALL OF THIS BUSINESS, but then "they" all of the sudden turns into only 11 of the group??
Context, as you so well stated, TC, overrides pretty much ANY grammatical rule in scripture. Context is KEY to understanding God's word, and to say we HAVE TO apply this rule in EVERY situation is absurd. I've never heard on decently studied theologian make that claim.
But, while I'm at it:
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them...
15 For these are not drunken...
Why on earth would Peter stand up with the 11 (written as to indicate "unison")and refer to the 11 as "these" and not "we"? Do you think the other 11 were still staggering around next to Peter but that Peter had "sobered up", prompting Peter to refer only to the other 11 as being drunk?
Come on, guys. :)
Reply to this
John,
Are you saying that all of the 120 in Acts 1:15 were Galileans? (Acts 2:8).
Not only that, look at all the references to the apostles after the baptism of the Holy Spirit took place and yet not one reference to the 120 (2:14, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43). There is not a single reference to the 120 after Acts 1:15. The only two members of that group that we even know by name is Justas and Matthias (Acts 1:23).
In reference to the "they" who were determining the replacement for Judas, are you saying that all 120 disciples made that decision? Who gave the requirements that the potential replacement had to meet? Who determined whether those requirements were met or not? Who asked the Lord to choose the replacement? Who cast the lots? Did all the 120 or did Peter on behalf of the apostles? (cf. Acts 1:15). Please tell me who Peter was signifying by the terms "these men" and "us" in verse 21. And again, "one of these" and "us" in the same verse.
If all the 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit then why don't you read ANYTHING about them doing signs and wonders? Why doesn't it say that "many signs and wonders were done through" the 120? You don't read of any disciples doing signs and wonders until Acts 6:8. And, even then it wasn't someone who is identified as one of the 120. It was Steven, one of the seven that the apostles had just laid hands on (Acts 6:6). So the first reference to a disciple, other than the apostles, doing signs and wonders was in direct connection to having that power imparted by the laying on the apostles hands NOT the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Any of the disciples, aside from the apostles and Cornelius' household, that you see doing signs and wonders are those who have had the apostle's hands laid on them. For example, Philip - also one of the seven from chapter 6 (Acts 8:5, 6). In this account it is made very clear that only the apostles could impart spiritual gifts (Acts 8:18).
So, John, please answer this question, "where do you find a record of any of those 120 doing signs and wonders?" Where do you find any disciples doing signs and wonders that had not had the apostle's hands laid on them? You show me an example of a disciple doing signs and wonders and I will show you where they would have been in contact with the apostles. It might not give the explicit record the apostle's hands being laid on them but you can't find anyone demonstrating the miraculous manifestation of the spirit that had not been in contact with the apostles at some point.
John, I know that you have probably already watched it, but let me just refer the readers to the video, "The Salvation Of A Good Moral Man," on the Norm's Notes blog (http://normsnotes.normfields.com).
Reply to this
Hi Norm:
You ask a lot of questions, ones I will be happy to address. But, would you mind answering mine first?
Thanks!
Reply to this
John,
I answered your argument for the 120 being included in the Holy Spirit baptism of Acts 2:1-4. I'm not sure what questions you're referring to that I didn't answer. Why don't you do like I did with Marc and post a list of questions that you think I would be unable to answer from my standpoint.
I just want to share with you what is probably one of the best statements I have ever read about the purpose for debate:
“If he is disposed to take issue, I want him to argue it, by taking the strongest scriptural issue he has in his power to take. Let us examine the merits of the case, sound the matter to the bottom, and if there is any heresy, let us have it out so the people can see it” (Benjamin Franklin).
I pray that in our discussions we would have an honest desire to please God in keeping with His inspired will. Let us not engage in such a discussion for the purpose of "proving myself right" but let us strive to "sound" our positions by the divine word of God and have the honest heart necessary to abandon what cannot be proved for what is clearly in harmony with the word.
Reply to this
Hi Norm:
You actually started out your response to me with a question and then went on to show me why YOU believe all 120 or so didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by them speaking in other tongues.
I also addressed context and then ended my post with a question about Peter standing up with the 11 and then using the word "they" and who that may have referred to.
As far your BF post and your statement in the last paragraph, all I can say is I agree 100%! :)
Reply to this
John,
I think in my response about the 120 not being included in the Holy Spirit Baptism I made it clear that when Peter stood up with the other apostles and said "these are not drunk" that he was referring to the apostles. Every reference in chapter two regarding those speaking in tongues, those to whom the people were listening, those who were preaching, etc. is in reference to the apostles. I asked for you to please show where there are any references to the 120 in this context and you have not. Other than implying that the "these" in Peter's statement is referring to them and not to the other apostles. For you to put the 120 there you are adding something into the text that was only mentioned once, and parenthetically at that, in 1:15. After that verse the whole discussion is getting the apostleship back to twelve and then to the work of those twelve, not the 120.
If this is the question you are referring to, I hope that now you will go on and answer the questions I have put to you.
I am glad you agree that this issue should sounded out according to scripture so all can clearly see the truth and, I pray, obey it. By the way, the Ben Franklin that I quoted from is probably not the Ben Franklin you are thinking of. He was a preacher in the early American Restoration movement and he made that comment in the context of debating a Baptist on the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins. I'm glad you agree with that attitude of open and honest discussion, as it is the attitude that my brethren have demonstrated from the beginning (i.e., 1 Peter 3:15; Acts 17:2; et. al.). I was hoping to engage you in a discussion of the Godhead (3 or 1) question also. Let me know and I will start another post for that discussion.
Reply to this
This is going to have to be in two parts:
NORM: Are you saying that all of the 120 in Acts 1:15 were Galileans? (Acts 2:8).
JOHN: I’d have to accept that if I claim to believe all meant the 120, wouldn’t I? And I do. :)
NORM: Not only that, look at all the references to the apostles after the baptism of the Holy Spirit took place and yet not one reference to the 120 (2:14, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43). There is not a single reference to the 120 after Acts 1:15. The only two members of that group that we even know by name is Justas and Matthias (Acts 1:23).
JOHN: “They” from Acts 1:15 refers to the 120 all the way to (and I’ll give you this bump in my road to proof) verse 26 when scripture says “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles”. If we apply a hard and unwavering rule of the “preceding noun” to this section of scripture, then you’d have my vote hands down. However, as someone else even mentioned, context overrides that grammatical rule. Why not? It does in other places, too.
NORM: In reference to the "they" who were determining the replacement for Judas, are you saying that all 120 disciples made that decision? Who gave the requirements that the potential replacement had to meet? Who determined whether those requirements were met or not? Who asked the Lord to choose the replacement? Who cast the lots? Did all the 120 or did Peter on behalf of the apostles? (cf. Acts 1:15). Please tell me who Peter was signifying by the terms "these men" and "us" in verse 21. And again, "one of these" and "us" in the same verse.
JOHN: If we abide by your rule of the “preceding noun”, then there is no way to deny that “they” from v15 to v25 immediately and unchangingly refers to the phrase “…the disciples…(the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,). Peter addressed this whole group as “Men and brethren”, and right off the bat, in v17, Peter refers to this group as “us”. It’s either/or, Norm: either the pronoun refers to the immediate noun or it doesn’t. Or….maybe context IS more important?
NORM: Any of the disciples, aside from the apostles and Cornelius' household, that you see doing signs and wonders are those who have had the apostle's hands laid on them.
JOHN: But, how can you ignore Cornelius? No one ever touched him and he was baptized with the Holy Ghost. It really only takes one example to cast a negative light on a belief, you know?
Reply to this
NORM: It might not give the explicit record the apostle's hands being laid on them but you can't find anyone demonstrating the miraculous manifestation of the spirit that had not been in contact with the apostles at some point.
JOHN: You ask me for proof of things, but then you make a statement like, “It might not give the explicit record”? Cornelius never felt Peter’s hand on him. What about Ananias? He laid hands on Paul, who then received the Holy Ghost, but we have no record that he was in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. That lets me know that it really doesn’t matter if you can find a detailed account as you’re asking for.
However, I don’t really know why there are no records of the 120 “demonstrating the miraculous manifestation of the spirit” (as you describe it). I don’t know why I have to produce this evidence when all I’m trying to show you is that approximately 120 folks spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.
In conlusion, I think another solid support for all 120 being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in other tongues is that Peter proclaimed this event to be the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of God pouring out of His Spirit upon ALL flesh and the references to “sons and daughters”, etc. Of course, Peter finishes giving the plan of salvation by saying the Promise was for those there, their children and all those who were afar off. I think that pretty much lets us know that more than just the apostles were granted this gift promised hundreds of years before. :)
Reply to this