Baptized, Poured Out, Filled, Received - all same?

[mfblume]

It is alleged by some that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not the same experience as having the Holy Ghost poured upon oneself or as one being "filled" with the Holy Ghost. I think they are one and the same experience.

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This shows that baptism of the Spirit and infilling of the Spirit are synonymous. Jesus said they would experience the baptism of the Spirit in a few days, and when they did, it was said to have filled them.

Act 8:15-16 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

This shows that the Spirit had not been RECEIVED by the people who believed and were even water baptized by Phillip.

And Acts 10's example of the gentiles speaking on tongues as they were given the Spirit was rephrased by Peter using the same terms we see in Acts 8. So the Spirit falling on people is accompanied with tongues

Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Paul repeats this position in Acts 19.

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul knew they were believers. But he asked them if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed. We read no evidence that they did not believe what Paul was implying when he asked them, but later find out they knew only John's ministry. For all intents and purposes, Paul assumed they believed in Jesus and knew His teachings when he asked them, for he would have known they had to yet hear of Jesus if he knew they were only disciples of John the baptist. So in Paul's mind, you can be a believer and yet not have experienced RECEIVING OF THE SPIRIT.

Some think the Spirit is "received" as soon as someone is a believer. Not in this case! If it was, why did they believe and require Peter and John to come and lay hands on them that they might receive the Spirit? And the same text says that Spirit being "fallen upon" them is the same thing as saying one receives the Spirit.

So we have Spirit baptism, Spirit infilling, Spirit reception, and Spirit being "fallen upon" people to all NOT OCCUR as soon as someone is a believer. And if all agree that some state of the Spirit is given inside a person's life as soon as one is a believer, they cannot call it "Spirit baptism", "Spirit infilling", "Spirit reception" or the "Spirit fallen upon" them.

So the question is whether these experiences are all one and the same. Why wouldn't they be? They all are said to occur AFTER one believes and not at the point of faith and belief. Where are the instances aside from these that indicate one somehow receives the Spirit aside from initial faith and belief?

[mfblume]

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Here was have the "Holy Ghost given" well after people already believed, not having been given the Holy Ghost upon their faith and belief and even water baptism before this point.

So let's add that to the list of synonymous terms used for the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We know in Acts 10 the gentiles were filled with the Holy Ghost as the Jews were in Acts 2 when they spoke in tongues. And here they were said to have had the Holy Ghost "poured out" upon them.

• Baptized with the Holy Ghost
• Filled with the Holy Ghost
• Received the Holy Ghost
• The Holy Ghost had Fallen Upon
• The Holy Ghost was given
• Outpouring of the Holy Ghost

... are all one and the same experience that does not occur immediately upon faith and belief in Jesus in all the cases using those terms that we cited.

[mfblume]

Anyone????????

[Praxeas]

Ive proven many times these terms are all synonymous in the book of Acts

[Michael The Disciple]

You are very accurate here Mike. This is what opened my eyes when I was a young Protestant believer. Oneness Pentecostals DO have the truth on this very important issue. Yet they seem to be ashamed of the tremendous truth YHWH has given them. The teaching by the Pastors and teachers in Oneness must be very sorely lacking in this generation.

[Sam]

Bro. Blume,

It is my opinion that the experience of
receiving the Holy Ghost
being baptized in the Holy Spirit
being filled with the Spirit
the Spirit coming upon
the Spirit falling upon
endued or clothed with power
are all synonymous for a post salvation or post conversion experience in the Spirit

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

Bro. Blume,

It is my opinion that the experience of
receiving the Holy Ghost
being baptized in the Holy Spirit
being filled with the Spirit
the Spirit coming upon
the Spirit falling upon
endued or clothed with power
are all synonymous for a post salvation or post conversion experience in the Spirit

It is also my opinion that:
--The disciples were saved prior to Pentecost, that Pentecost was an enduement of power not a salvation or born again experience
--The folks in Samaria were converted/saved or had received the Word prior to water baptism and were then subsequently filled with the Spirit when Peter and John came and laid hands upon them.
--The Ethiopian eunuch was converted/saved or Philip would not have agreed to his baptism in water, and then the Spirit came upon him after the water baptism.
--Saul of Tarsus was converted on the road to Damascus and 3 days later was filled with the Holy Spirit
--Cornelius and his friends believed the words spoken by Peter and were saved prior to the Holy Spirit coming upon them
--The folks in Ephesus were saved so Paul baptized them in water and then ministered the Holy Ghost Baptism by the laying on of hands.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sam

Bro. Blume,

It is my opinion that the experience of
receiving the Holy Ghost
being baptized in the Holy Spirit
being filled with the Spirit
the Spirit coming upon
the Spirit falling upon
endued or clothed with power
are all synonymous for a post salvation or post conversion experience in the Spirit

Yet this is the ONLY record of people RECEIVING THE SPIRIT. When they are filled, baptized, or it comes upon, or is poured out to them. This is receiving the Spirit.

Protestant doctrine teaches it comes just at belief. No evidence of that in the book of Acts.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It is alleged by some that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not the same experience as having the Holy Ghost poured upon oneself or as one being "filled" with the Holy Ghost. I think they are one and the same experience.

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This shows that baptism of the Spirit and infilling of the Spirit are synonymous. Jesus said they would experience the baptism of the Spirit in a few days, and when they did, it was said to have filled them.

Act 8:15-16 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

This shows that the Spirit had not been RECEIVED by the people who believed and were even water baptized by Phillip.

And Acts 10's example of the gentiles speaking on tongues as they were given the Spirit was rephrased by Peter using the same terms we see in Acts 8. So the Spirit falling on people is accompanied with tongues

Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Paul repeats this position in Acts 19.

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul knew they were believers. But he asked them if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed. We read no evidence that they did not believe what Paul was implying when he asked them, but later find out they knew only John's ministry. For all intents and purposes, Paul assumed they believed in Jesus and knew His teachings when he asked them, for he would have known they had to yet hear of Jesus if he knew they were only disciples of John the baptist. So in Paul's mind, you can be a believer and yet not have experienced RECEIVING OF THE SPIRIT.

Some think the Spirit is "received" as soon as someone is a believer. Not in this case! If it was, why did they believe and require Peter and John to come and lay hands on them that they might receive the Spirit? And the same text says that Spirit being "fallen upon" them is the same thing as saying one receives the Spirit.

So we have Spirit baptism, Spirit infilling, Spirit reception, and Spirit being "fallen upon" people to all NOT OCCUR as soon as someone is a believer. And if all agree that some state of the Spirit is given inside a person's life as soon as one is a believer, they cannot call it "Spirit baptism", "Spirit infilling", "Spirit reception" or the "Spirit fallen upon" them.

So the question is whether these experiences are all one and the same. Why wouldn't they be? They all are said to occur AFTER one believes and not at the point of faith and belief. Where are the instances aside from these that indicate one somehow receives the Spirit aside from initial faith and belief?

If these terms are truly synonomous in every context ... for the intial receipt and baptism of the of the Holy Spirit .... and we use the author's Lukes words for this "unique" experience some questions come to mind:

1. Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zecharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference .... all written post-Pentecost.

Were they baptized with the Holy Spirit, pre-Pentecost? .... Spirt-filled? .... Didn't fully believe or were not saved until they received this infilling?

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.


Greek:

kai egeneto (5633) wv hkousen (5656) ton aspasmon thv Mariav h Elisabet, eskirthsen (5656) to brefov en th koilia authv, kai eplhsqh(5681) pneumatov agiou h Elisabet,

Acts 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.


Greek:

kai eplhsqhsan (5681) pantev pneumatov agiou, kai hrcanto lalein (5721) eteraiv glwssaiv kaqwv to pneuma edidou (5707) apofqeggesqai (5738) autoiv.

Luke 1:67

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:


Kai Zaxariav o pathr autou eplhsqh (5681) pneumatov agiou kai eprofhteusen (5656) legwn, (5723)

-----------------------

If these terms are interchangeable in the strict 3 stepper sense then were the apostles "re-baptized" with an initial reception of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 4 when LUKE writes?

31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

And why is the sign of glossalia not present but rather... speaking the Word of God boldly?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by DAII

If these terms are truly synonomous ... for the intial receipt and baptism of the of the Holy Spirit .... and we use the author's Lukes words for this "unique" experience some questions come to mind:

1. Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zecharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference .... were they baptized with the Holy Spirit .... Spirt-filled .... didn't believe or were not saved until they received this infilling?



-----------------------

If these terms are interchangeable in the strict 3 stepper sense then were the apostles "re-baptized" with an initial reception of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 4 when LUKE writes?



And why is the sign of glossalia not present but rather... speaking the Word of God boldly?

Kinda sounds to me like three steppers run into bigger problems claiming they are all the same than one steppers do.