PDA

View Full Version : When did the church begin?



Kings Kid
10-25-01, 10:28 PM
I think if you asked most people, "When did the church begin?", they would point you to Acts chapter 2. It's certainly the most popular view. But what I would like to do, is to present another view of when the church began.

In John 20:19-23 it says, "Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' Now when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Then Jesus said to them again, 'Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' And when He said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

When Jesus says, "Receive the Holy Spirit.", the Greek word for "receive" (vs22) is in the "aorist imperative". In the Greek, the "aorist imperative" never has a future meaning. Never! When the Lord said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit", they did receive the Holy Spirit at that time!

When Jesus "breathed" on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit", the word "breathed" in the Greek, is a word that was used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament in two important passages.

The first passage is Genesis 2:7, which says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and "BREATHED" into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

The second passage is Ezekiel 37:5-9, which says, "Thus sats the Lord god to these bones: 'Surely I will cause "BREATH" to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put "BREATH" in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.' So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no "BREATH" in them. Then He said to me, 'Prophesy to the "BREATH", prophesy, son of man, and say to "BREATH", 'Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O "BREATH", and "BREATHE" on these slain, that they may live'".

The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word "BREATH" is exactly the same word that is used in John 20.

Matthew Henry (when commenting on John 20:22) says, "As the breath of the Almighty gave life to man and began the old world, so the breath of the mighty Savour gave life to His ministers and began the new world." If we can make the parallel of breathing life into a body, then what Christ was doing in John 20, was the breathing of life into the body (the church). Jesus was constituting the church. That was the birth of the church!

Not only was the church born, but also Christ sent them out to do work and He gave them authority. We see this in John 20:22,23 where it says, "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

There is a parallel passage to John 20:23 and that is Matthew 28:18-20, where it says, "Then Jesus came to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age'".

Both passages show that the church is commissioned before the day of Pentecost. There seems to be enough evidence to show that the church is already constituted!

Some people object to Jesus being able to give the Holy spirit at that time because they say He was not yet glorified. As proof they quote John 7:39 which says, "But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." So if Jesus was not yet glorified, He could not have given the Holy Spirit and thererfore the church could not have been constituted at that time.

If we look at John 20:17 and compare it with John 20:27, I think we will see Jesus before the glorification and Jesus after the glorification. In John 20:17 Jesus says, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethern and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"

Notice that Jesus told Mary not to cling to Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. But in verse 27, Jesus tells Thomas to do the exact opposite. Jesus says to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into my side." Why couldn't Mary touch Jesus, but Thomas was able to touch Him. It would seem that in the morning with Mary, Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven so He had not been glorified yet. But by evening, Jesus had returned to earth in his glorified state (after presenting His own blood in heaven), breathed life into the church and commissioned it.

If John 20 really is the birth of the church, then what happened in Acts 2?

Andrew
10-26-01, 12:15 AM
KK,

I agree with your analysis & also feel that the 2 events has spiritual implications for the individual believer.

That is, I see Jn 20:22 as my "born again" experience and Acts 2 as more of an empowerment for service/victorious living - Baptism of power/of the the Holy Spirit, which i received many years later. It is also my personal view that most Christians are missing out on the latter experience for various reasons, chief of which you either love or hate tongues.

Of course, there wld be "violent" objections to this view.*LOL

God bless

HIS
10-28-01, 05:21 PM
Interesting post by Kings Kid...

I have a question:

When would you say Jesus was "glorified" . . . At His death or at His resurrection, or when/after He was ascended up into heaven?

I ask the question above because of this passage:


In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (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.) John 7:37-39


Grace and Peace to you,

HIS

HIS
10-29-01, 12:04 AM
Kings Kid,

I apologize for not reading your original post in its entirety. I was in a hurry to leave the house and just read the first half.

After taking the time to fully read your post, I see you have addressed my question regarding John 7. You state that Jesus was somehow glorified because Mary was not able to touch him but Thomas (later in the evening) was.

Yet, does the Scripture say that Thomas touched Jesus?

John 20:27-29 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

All it says is that Thomas saw him, and then he (finally) believed. Somehow, I think Jesus knew Thomas was not going to touch him.

So, I think there is still some debate as to when Jesus was glorified.

But, perhaps I didn’t even need to consider this question in the first place…

I think a more reasonable and less debatable question would be this:

If the disciples / apostles had received the Holy Ghost when Jesus breathed on them, then WHY would he ask them to go to Jerusalem to wait for it?

In Luke 24, Jesus is with his disciples and says in verses 47-51:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

This was all a part of the “great commission” given by Jesus before he ascended into heaven.

The same writer (Luke) records this statement in the Book of Acts:

Acts 1:1-5 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

They obey the Lord, and go to Jerusalem.

They appoint Matthias as the twelfth apostle (to replace Judas).

The stay in an upper room and continue to pray for the promise.

They receive it in Acts 2:4


Kings Kid...I do like all of your analogies regarding John 20:22. I just believe he was speaking "Prophetically"

Jesus was giving them a sign of how the Holy Ghost would be given -- Like the breath of God.

This (by the way) fits perfectly with what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:8


The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Kings Kid
10-29-01, 12:23 AM
HIS,

You asked:

"When would you say Jesus was "glorified"...At His death or at His resurrection, or when/after He was ascended up into heaven?"

Well, one thing we know for sure. Jesus was "glorified" before the ascention. There's no doubt about this.

According to John 7:37,39, the Holy Spirit was not given because Jesus was not yet "glorified". Only after Jesus was "glorified" could the Holy Spirit be given.

Since the Holy Spirit was given by Jesus in John 20:22-23, He would have to have been "glorified" at that point and time.

Are we sure that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit in John 20:22-23? Is it possible that Jesus was giving a prophecy about what would happen on the day of Pentecost? Or, is it possible that when Jesus breathed on them, it was some kind of symbolic gesture?

The Greek grammar makes this absolutely clear. The Greek word "receive" is in the "aorist imparitive" and when a word is in the "aorist imparitive", it never has a future meaning. That word was chosen to show us that when the Lord said, "Receive the Holy Spirit", they really did receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not saying something prophetic and he was not preparing them for something to happen in the future. It happened right there and then!

Jesus was "glorified" at His "death". But was that when He was able to give the Holy Spirit? NO! Why not? Because He had not finished the final completion of His work.

Jesus was "glorified" at His "resurrection". But was that when He was able to give the Holy Spirit? NO! Why not? Because He had not finished the final completion of His work.

In John 20:17 Jesus said to Mary (early in the morning), "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father...", but in verse 27 Jesus says to Thomas (that same evening), "Reach your fingers here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into my side."

Why was Mary unable to touch Jesus, but thomas was able to touch Him? Mary was unable to touch Jesus because Jesus had not yet ascended. But Thomas was able to touch Jesus because between the time of meeting Mary in the morning and meeting the disciples in the evening, Jesus had been to the Father and back. Jesus was now able to give the Holy Spirit.

But how can we be sure that Jesus really did ascend to the Father immediately after talking with Mary and then coming back a few hours later to meet the disciples?

In John 20:17 after Jesus had said to Mary, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father", He goes on to say to her, "...but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father...'" If this ascending to the Father was going to be days into the future, He would have told the disciples the message Himself, because He appeared to them only a few hours later. And when He met with them He said nothing about ascending to the Father. Why not? Because He had already ascended and came back.

Well if Jesus ascended to the Father in the morning and then came back and met with the disciples in the evening, exactly what happened while Jesus was before the Father in heaven?

To answer this I will give a response from Martyn Lloyd-Jones (which most of what I have said so far has come from).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones says:

He had been presenting his own blood in the heavenly tabernacle. Read Hebrews 9 and you will see exactly what I mean. In the old days they presented the blood of bulls and of goats in an earthly tabernacle; he had taken his own blood and presented it in the heavenly tabernacle. That was when he did it, immediately after his resurrection. And then having done that which was the final completion of the work, he came back, as I have shown, and said to these apostles: 'You are now my body, I am now henceforth the head of the church, which is my body, and you are members of it. You are one, you have become this organism and I give you this commission.'

That, of course, is what proves all this to be true. If you go back to the Old Testament types, which are but foreshadowings of all this, you will find that when the beast was killed and the blood was collected, it was not kept for some forty days before it was presented in the tabernacle or in the temple. No - it happened at the same time and was one action. It is quite wrong to think that our Lord only presented his blood in the glory and was then glorified after the ascention. No. That happened immediately after the resurrection, and these different statements I have suggested to you prove that beyond any doubt or peradventure whatsoever. (end of quote)

When Jesus presented His blood before the Father, He finished the final completion of His work. Jesus was now able to give the Holy Spirit. It is here in John 20:22-23 that we see the birth of the church, not Acts chapter two!

Jesus was glorified in His death, resurrection, and when He presented His blood before the heavenly tabernacle. But it was the final glorification (the final completion of His work)where He was then able to give the Holy Spirit!

Kings Kid
10-29-01, 02:12 AM
HIS,

You asked:

"If the disciples/apostles had received the Holy Ghost when Jesus breathed on them, then why would he ask them to go to Jerusalem to wait for it?"

Read the first two chapters of Acts. There's nothing there to suggest that this passage is teaching the constitution of the church.

John 20:22-23 teaches that the disciples/apostles received the Holy spirit, then and there! Then why does Jesus tell them to wait for the promise of the Father in Jerusalem?

In Luke 24:49 it says "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

Jesus tells them to stay in the Jerusalem until they are endued with power!

In Acts 1:8 it says "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusaslem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

In this verse we see why they had to wait in Jerusalem. It was so that they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit for witnessing.

Peter tells us exactly what this power of the Holy Spirit is when he says in Acts 2:16,"But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh..."

So what the disciples were waiting for in Jerusalem was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for the purposes of witnessing. Jesus told them to wait for this power because they needed it.

In Acts 2:33 it says, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."

It is Jesus that pours out the Holy Spirit so that the church has power to witness. This pouring out is seen in Acts 4:31, where it says, "And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness."

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit gave them the boldness (power) to witness.

That's what the gift of the Holy Spirit is all about. Power for witnessing!

John 20 is the constituting of the church. Acts 2 is the empowering of the church!

HIS
10-29-01, 11:11 PM
Kings Kid,

Okay, perhaps I need to clarify something with you.

When you say someone has "received the Holy Ghost," is this the same as saying someone has been "baptized with the Holy Ghost"?

Are these two different experiences or the same?

Yours in Christ Jesus,

HIS

Kings Kid
10-30-01, 01:49 AM
HIS

You asked:

When you say someone has "received the Holy Ghost", is this the same as saying someone has been "baptized with the Holy Ghost"?

Are these two experiences the same?


There are "two" experiences!

In one experience, the Holy Spirit is the "baptizer". The Holy Spirit is "putting" the believer "into" the body of Christ.(1 Cor.12:13)

In the other experience, Jesus is the "baptizer". Jesus is "putting" the Holy Spirit "into" the believer. (John 1:26,33;Acts 1:4-8;Luke 3:16)

It looks like this:

Baptism "by" the Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit-->Believer-->Body of Christ

Baptism "with" the Holy Spirit (or Filled "with" the Holy Spirit)
Jesus-->Holy Spirit-->Believer

Let's take a look at the Baptism "by" the Holy Spirit. This truth is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13, where it says:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

Dr. Wuest, a Greek scholar, says about this verse:

Baptism means 'to place into' or to 'introduce into'...The word Spirit is in the instrumental case in the Greek. Personal agency is expressed occasionally by the instrumental case. At such times the verb is always in the passive or middle voice. The Greek construction here follows this rule of Greek grammer. The personal agent in this case who does the baptizing is the Holy Spirit. He places or introduces the believing sinner into the body of which the Lord Jesus is the living Head. We could translate therefore 'by means of the personal agency of one Spirit we all were placed in one body'.

It is not the baptism with the Spirit, or of the Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the element that is applied to us; it is the baptism by the Spirit. This baptism does not bring the Spirit to us in the sense that God places the Spirit upon us or in us; rather this baptism brings the believer into vital union with Jesus Christ. This means that the baptism by the Spirit is not for power, for in this baptism there is nothing applied or given to the believer.

Therefore our rendering 'baptized by means of the Spirit' is correct for the Corinthian passage but not correct for those others commented upon. The phrase 'with the spirit' therefore defines what baptism is referred to, and the words 'by means of the Spirit' speak of the fact that the Holy Spirit is the Devine Agent who himself baptizes, the purpose of which baptism is to place the believing sinner into vital union with Jesus Christ and thus make him a member of the body of which Christ is the living Head. (End of quote)

Let's look at the Baptism "with" the Holy Spirit. In the following verses you will see that Jesus is the 'baptizer'!

In John 1:26,33 it says, "John answered them, saying, 'I baptize with water, but ther stands One among you whom you do not know. I did not know Him, But He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descend, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'"

In this verse we see that Jesus is the Baptizer (with the Holy Spirit).

In Acts 1:5 it says, "...John truely baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many ddays from now."

Jesus was talking to regenerate disciples who had already been baptized "by" the Holy Spirit, but who had to wait for the baptism "with" the Holy spirit, that would be given by Jesus.

In Luke 3:16 it says, "...He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Again we see that the baptism "with" the Holy Spirit is something that Jesus does!

So John 20:22-23 was the Baptism "by" the Holy Spirit and Acts 2 was the Baptism "with" the Holy Spirit.

Baptism "by" the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit Putting the believer into the body of Christ.

Baptism "with" the Holy Spirit is Jesus putting the Holy Spirit into the believer, so that he has power for witnessing.

By the way, the term "Baptized with the Holy Spirit" is no longer used after Acts chapter two. Instead the term "Filled with the Spirit" is used. I think it is wise to use that term so that it doesn't create confusion.

Andrew
10-30-01, 02:09 AM
KK,

Thanks for the analysis.
So how do you tell if someone has been Baptised with the Holy SPirit as in Acts 2?

You mention power to witness. What to you are examples of this power?

God bless

Kings Kid
10-31-01, 02:40 AM
Andrew,

You asked:

So how do you tell if someone has been Baptized with the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2?

You mention power to witness. What, to you, are examples of this power?

Baptism "by" the Holy Spirit is something "unconscious", meaning it is not experimental. No one can tell the moment they are regenerated.

Baptism "with" the Holy Spirit is something "conscious"! It is experimental. It's something clear and obvious. It can manifest itself in many different ways!

-Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4)
-Speaking loudly and boldly (Luke 1:41,42; Acts 4:31
-Prophetic utterance (Luke 1:67)
-The filling of the Holy Spirit was so obvious, that Simon wanted to buy it. (Acts 8:18)

In Acts 10, Peter visits Cornelius' household. In verses 44-47, it says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon those whho heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had ben poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

It wasn't something secret or unconscious. Peter knew without a doubt that they had been filled with the Holy Spirit.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Filled with the Holy Spirit) doesn't always manifest itself through sign gifts. Many have manifested the filling of the Holy Spirit through bold preaching, teaching ,witnessing,etc. (Acts 4:31) In fact, many of the accounts of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit before the 1900's , had no account of speaking in tongues associated with it.

One last thing I want to add, which is that the filling of the Holy Spirit is not a permant state. The gift of the Holy Spirit is sovereignly given by our Lord. He gives it to whom He wants, when He wants, for as long as He wants. The filling of the Holy Spirit does not mean that you have arrived at a new spiritual plateau. You may be filled on Monday, but not on Tuesday. We see this in Acts. The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit in chapter 2, but then in chapter 4, they are filled again.

The Holy Spirit gives power to witness. An example of this is on the day of Pentecost when Peter stands up and preaches to the people. 3000 souls were saved that day! Was it because Peter was such a good preacher? NO! It was because he preached in the power of the Holy Spirit which he was filled with.

Andrew
10-31-01, 03:15 AM
KK,
-----------------
Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Filled with the Holy Spirit) doesn't always manifest itself through sign gifts. Many have manifested the filling of the Holy Spirit through bold preaching, teaching ,witnessing,etc. (Acts 4:31) In fact, many of the accounts of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit before the 1900's , had no account of speaking in tongues associated with it.
-----------------

So it wld seem to me that anyone who preaches/teaches boldly or witnesses in a bold way is probably baptised with the Holy Spirit?

Don't you think that this lends itself to some subjectivity? eg. Would you say that someone who is bold enough to knock on doors to preach the gospel is baptised with the Holy Spirit?

If you agree that your "definition" can lend itself to subjectivity, then is it possible that God knew this and therefore gives a supernatural sign (nevermind what sign it is for now) to prove beyond subjectivity that a believer has indeed been baptised?

Do you think such an approach wld have been a "safer" guage?

God bless

Kings Kid
11-01-01, 02:03 AM
Andrew,

You said:

So it wld seem to me that anyone who preaches/teaches boldly or witnesses in a bold way is probably baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Not necessarily! I don't think there is a standard sign to indicate whether someone has been filled with the Holy Spirit. There could be 1,001 different ways.

For some, they might be "filled" at their salvation. For others, they may be "filled" somewhere in the middle of their Christian life. And for others, they may be "filled" on their death bed. In fact, many people may not ever be "filled" with the Holy Spirit in their Christian lives!

The point is that Jesus is completely sovereign in giving a greater measure of the Holy Spirit. For some it may be profoundly powerful and absolutely obvious to everyone. For others, it may be less powerful and not as obvious to others.

You said:

Don't you think that this lends itself to some subjectivity? eg. Would you say that someone who is bold enough to knock on doors to preach the gospel is baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Yes, subjectivity is possible. I would not say that someone who is bold enough to knock on doors to preach the gospel is "filled" with the Spirit. As I have already said, there is no standard sign to prove the "filling" with the spirit.

You said:

If you agree that your "definition" can lend itself to subjectivity, then is it possible that God knew this and therefore gives a supernatural sign (nevermind what sign it is for now) to prove beyond subjectivity that a believer has indeed been baptized?

I don't believe that God gave "ONE" supernatural sign, I believe He gave a "VARIETY" of signs. If there was only one "SIGN", it's possible that people would covet the "SIGN" instead of the "SIGN" giver!

You said:

Do you think such an approach wld have been a "safer" guage?

Having one "guage" (as you say) would make it easier for us, but I guess God in His wisdom had other ideas!

Let me give you a few of the testimonies of some Christian men who were "filled" with the Spirit, but did not speak in togues or exhibit a sign gift.

John Flavel's "filling" testimony:

Thus going on his way his thoughts began to swell and rise higher and higher like the waters of Ezekiel's vision, til at last they became an overwhelming flood. Such was the intention of his mind, such the ravishing tastes of heavenly joys, and such the full assurance of his interest therein, that he utterly lost all sight and sense of the world and all the concerns thereof, and for some hours he knew no more where he was than it had been in a deep sleep upon his bed. Arriving in great exhaustion at a certain spring he sat down and washed, earnestly desiring that if it was God's plesure that this might be his parting place from the world. Death had the most amiable face in his eyes that ever he beheld, except the face of Jesus Christ which made it so, and he does not remember though he believed himself dying, that he ever thought of his dear wife and children or any other earthly concernment. On reaching his Inn the influence still continued, banishing sleep, still the joy of the Lord overflowed him and he seemed to be an inhabitant of the Other world. He many years after called that day one of the days of heaven, and professed that he understood more of the life of heaven by it than by all the books he ever read. (End of quote)

Jonathan Edward's "filling" testimony:

As I rode out into the woods for my health, in 1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation and prayer, I had a view that was for me extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and His wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek and gentle condescention. This grace that appeared so calm and sweet, appeared also great above the heavens. The Person of Christ appearred ineffably excellent with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thoughts and conceptions, which continued, as near as I can judge, about an hour; such as to keep me a greater part of the time in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love Him with a holy and pure love; to trust in Him; to live upon Him; to serve Him and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. (End of quote)

D.L. Moody's "filling" testimony:

I began to cry as never before, for a greater blessing from God. The hunger increased; I really felt that I did not want to live any longer. I kept on crying all the time that God would fill me with His Spirit. Well, one day in the City of New York - oh! what a day, I cannot describe it, I seldom refer to it. It is almost too sacred an experience to name. Paul had an experience of which he never spoke for fourteen years. I can only say, God revealed Himself to me, and I had such an experience of His love that I had to ask Him to stay His hand. (End of quote)

These three men had a profound "filling" with the Holy Spirit. Any tongues? Nope! Were they subjective experiences? You be the judge!!!

Andrew
11-01-01, 03:13 AM
I do not doubt their experiences. But given the different natures and cultures diff ppl have, another person experiencing exactly what, say, DL Moody experienced cld have described it very differently. eg a sensitive emotional woman may cry or jump for joy when saved while another man may just feel peace, yet both are equally saved.

I believe God can touch us in many different ways at different times of our lives but I wldnt equate that to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ala Acts 2.

I still believe that key are "power" and "supernatural sign(s)". One can have any kind of experience (quiet or explosive, 2D or 3D) but there ought to be some supernatural outcome.

My own belief is that tongues is the sign or norm, or at least one of the nine supernatural gifts.

Again, i say this bcos we're talking abt the Baptism of "enduement of power form on high". Hence, the need for something supernatural as opposed to something human.

Another reason why i say tongues is becos i believe that when one is filled with the Holy Spirit, one shld be able to speak a spiritual lang.


:)

Kings Kid
11-02-01, 02:54 AM
Andrew,

You said:

"I do not doubt their experiences."

I think you do! If there is not a supernatural outcome (sign gift), you will not recognize it as an enduement of power from on high.

If those men had said that they spoke in tongues, you would have accepted their testimony as the "filling of the Holy Spirit" in a second!

You reduced their experience from being something supernatural to being something human, just because they didn't speak in tongues. You have just discredited all those who have been filled with the Holy Spirit and yet did not speak in tongues. You have reduced it from something that came from God, to something that came from within. Is it possible that you are judging other people's experiences based on your own experience?

As you probably know, there are those who speak in tongues who are not Christian's. If tongues is the objective gage of whether a person is filled with the Holy Spirit or not, what do you do with this group of people. What does that say about tongues being the indication that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit?

In 1 Corinthians 12:30 Paul says, "Do all have the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"

Clearly Paul is saying that not all will speak in tongues!

In 1 Corinthians 14:5 Paul says, "I wish you all spoke with tongues..."

Obviously all didn't speak with tongues!

Finally, I would like to add a quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones that deals with this subject.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones says:

When we were dealing with the question of the baptism with the Spirit in general I gave you a number of quotations of some of the greatest and most saintly men the church has ever known, some of the greatest preachers and evangelists. These were men who had received the baptism with the Holy Spirit after their conversion in a most unmistakable manner and who gave proof that they had received this by being used so mightily of God in evangelism and in revival; but none of them spoke in tongues, not one of them.

Now these are sheer facts and they surely should indicate to us how wrong it is to make these dogmatic assertions. But let me be quite fair; not all who belong to the Pentecostal church teach this: some do and some do not. It is very interesting to note that at the European Pentecostal Conference, which was held in Stockholm in 1939, it was admitted that tongues might occur apart from the Spirit's action. Now these men are honest men of God who were ready to admit in a world conference that powers other than the Holy Spirit can enable people to speak in tongues; they then went on to say that a Christian could be filled with the Spirit without the sign of tongues. Quite so! They would have been flying in the face of the facts of history as well as in the plain teaching of the Scriptures had they not made that admission and concession.

Now I am concerned about all this for this reason. When people are told that unless they speak in tongues they have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, many who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit are made to feel very unhappy. They say, 'But I have never spoken in tongues, and I am told that because of that, I have never been baptized with the Spirit.' But they had thought that they were, thus they are made unhappy.

But still more serious is the fact that having been made unhappy in this way by this false teaching, they then, of course, become much more open than they were before to psychological pressure, let alone the influence of evil spirits. They are so anxious to have this 'essential' evidence that they do everything they can to speak in tongues and, of course, after a while some of them begin to do so. But the question is - what has made them do so? Others remain unhappy and miserable, which is quite wrong and false. It is all due to this one teaching. It is to fly in the face of the Scriptures and the history of the church to say that unless a man has spoken in tongues, he has never been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

It is possible for a man to be baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues, and , indeed, without having some of these other gifts which the Apostle lists in this great passage that we are examining. (End of quote)

Some food for thought!

Andrew
11-02-01, 03:34 AM
Hey cool bro,

why get so upset. I'm just giving my opinion.

doubt their experience? i believe they def experience something from God, but why shld i automatically equate that to the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Smith Wigglesworth had all sorts of blessings/encounters with God, till he was totally convinced that no one could tell him that he was not already Baptised with the Holy Spirit through and through. Yet he later found out that he wasn't and HUMBLY received the Baptism with tongues.

-----------
I think you do! If there is not a supernatural outcome (sign gift), you will not recognize it as an enduement of power from on high.
-----------

I think you are still missing my point: if its an enduement of power from above, then it ought to produce the supernatural (from above). Reason: to distinguish between human effort/talent and divine power.

----------------
As you probably know, there are those who speak in tongues who are not Christian's.
----------------
Why do you worry that your Abba Father will give you a snake when you ask for a fish?

I do not intent to debate here on tongues or more accurately, how every believer can be Baptised in the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign. There are many websites out there arguing for and against this "doctrine" that you hate - so already your mind is closed.

From what I've observed, Christians who gladly believe receive so simply as long as they speak out in faith. Those who fight against or refuse to open their mouth and perservere simply don't receive.

Point is KK, if you are really hungry for more of God, if i told you that tonight or in the days to come you could receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, wld you be interested? Wld you be excited? Or do u just hate the whole idea?

Kings Kid
11-03-01, 04:52 AM
Andrew,

You said:

"I do not intent to debate here on tongues or more accurately, how every believer can be baptized in the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign. There are many websites out there arguing for and against this "doctrine" that you hate - so already your mind is closed."

I believe our views are very similar. We both believe that the Bible teaches that there is a baptism with the Holy Spirit. We need this power and we should continually pray for it.

We may have differences of opinion on some minor things regarding tongues but I think we are in the same camp. I enjoy seeing things from your perspective. I like to work through Biblical issues, find out where differrences are, and then try to think it through. So I hope you don't truely think that I hate anything or am closed minded to anything you bring forward to discuss (eventhough I may challenge it).

You said:

"Point is KK, if you are really hungry for more of God, if I told you that tonight or in the days to come you could receive the Baptism of the Holy spirit and speak in tongues, wld you be interested? Wld you be excited? Or do u just hate the whole idea?"

Point is Andrew, I was baptized with the Holy Spirit in the spring of 1977. It lasted approx. 10-12 hours (without tongues). It was a profound experience. It was the only time in my Christian life that I was filled with the Spirit. My wife and I regularly pray for the filling with the Spirit for ourselves, our family, and our church. There is nothing I want more!!!!!!

By your words, I can tell you have misunderstood me. Words like:

- this "doctrine" that you hate
- already your mind is closed
- do u just hate the whole idea?

As I have already said, I think we are pretty close in our views on this subject. We both love the same thing despite our minor differences.

Talk to you later brother!

Brandan
11-03-01, 07:00 AM
LOL, I'm sure Andrew would be surprised to hear that I probably agree with him on a lot of things too.. For example, I too believe that "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a distinctly separate that comes after conversion. I remember when I was baptized in the Spirit. I spoke in tongues, but I do not believe there is enough Scripture to warrant the belief that everyone baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues. My wife was baptized in the Spirit earlier this year, and well, it was exciting to say the least. But she didn't speak in tongues and did not exhibit any outward physical manifestations..

Andrew
11-04-01, 02:54 AM
Okay KK,

Maybe i came across too strong, but I really got the impression from you that you were really "p----d off" with my reply.

So you and kermie and i believe that there is "something more" after conversion — the Bap of the Holy Spirit.

the only part we disagree is the part on tongues. i acknowledge that one of the problems is that scripture does not state explicitly that tongues is the sign, and that to insist that it is causes all the argument.

but for certain reasons my conviction is still tht it is the sign. and i still believe anyone who is Baptised in the Holy Spirit can speak in a spiritual language if they would proceed in faith. ie they have the potential.

that means you and kermie's wife can if they choose too. this is meant as an encouragement, not as a denial of their experience.

God bless