Why Does God Give the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

[EA]

The baptism in the Spirit produces godliness in us.

Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

But the fruit (end-result, culmination) of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Check this out.
http://www.isaiah58.com/

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Mizpeh, why did Holy Spirit baptism precede water baptism on the Day of Pentecost?

Why do you think the Holy Ghost Baptism preceded water baptism on the Day of Pentecost?

The Holy Ghost Baptism was poured out on 120 disciples of Jesus. Most, if not all of them, would have already been baptized as disciples of John the Baptist or disciples of Jesus.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Ok I know this is old news but how could Elizabeth be filled with the holyghost before pentecost. Are there 2 holyghost..... One before pentecost and one after.....

There is only one Holy Ghost.
God is a Spirit.
Folks in the Old Testament were filled with the Holy Ghost. They were moved on by the Holy Ghost. They were used by the Holy Ghost. They were equipped and empowered by the Holy Ghost. God was active in and among them as the Holy Ghost.
The difference with the New Testament after Jesus ascended to the Father is that:
In the Old Testament the empowering or filling of the Holy Ghost was for those who served God as prophets, leaders, artisans, craftsmen, etc but not promised to everyone. In the NT, the promise is to all believers.
Also, these experiences in the Old Testament seem to be limited to those of Israel while in the New Testament the promise is for Jews and Gentiles.
Speaking with tongues is not recorded in the Old Testament whereas in the New Testament when folks were baptized in the Spirit some time it is recorded that they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

[KWSS1976]

Sam do you believe that they were filled with the holyghost and god gave them the ability to speak in another language (i.e tongues) to spread the gospel.. in the book of Acts

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Really?

By whom?

Some were followers of John the Baptist before they followed Jesus so they had been baptized by John. Others were disciples of Jesus so we assume they were baptized when they joined up with Him.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

and....wasn't that to declare to the public WHO they were following after they received the Holy Ghost?

Not so much they weren't saved until they were baptized, but to let everyone know they were saved?

Ummmm...no...I don't think baptism is just an announcement. Is that what you believe? I believe baptism is for the remission of sins. Past, present and future.

And I firmly believe that it matters HOW you are baptized, else John's disciples would not have needed to be re-baptized.

There's one scripture that says if you believe, your sins are remitted, and then in another place, Philip told the eunuch he could be baptized IF he believed, and AFTER the eunuch had confessed his believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Philip baptized him. I don't see anywhere in Acts where the apostles separated repentance and baptism as part of salvation. They always "filled in the missing pieces of the puzzle. If someone had repented, they baptized them, and prayed for them to receive the Holy Ghost. If they had repented and been baptized, they prayed for them to receive the Holy Ghost. If they hadn't done anything, they tried to get them to turn their hearts toward Christ (first) as believers. If they had repented, and received the Holy Ghost, they led them to baptism.

I am a firm "3-stepper." I believe a person must repent of their sins, be filled with the Holy Ghost, and be baptized in Jesus' name in order to be saved. I don't think it matters whether you're baptized first or get the Holy Ghost first, but I think scriptural instruction and scriptural example shows repeatedly these three things working together to convert.

Why would we want to do things any differently than the apostles?

One of the issues I have with being too accepting of trinitarian doctrine as being just another version of what we believe, is that then there seems to be no recourse to lead them to a more excellent way. YES, they are believers, YES, they have repented, and YES they are disciples, but I firmly believe if Peter was speaking to one of these repentant, believing disciples, he would say, "What hinders you from being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus?" And then he would lay hands on them and pray for the Holy Ghost to fall on them (if it hasn't already).

When we are so afraid of offending other believers/disciples that we feel we can't lead them into a better way, then something is WRONG.

Of course, I don't read where any of those disciples ever answered back and said, "Peter, what are you saying? Are you saying we aren't saved because we only repented? Are you saying we have to do more or we'll be lost?"

If they had asked those questions, what would the apostles have answered?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Sam do you believe that they were filled with the holyghost and god gave them the ability to speak in another language (i.e tongues) to spread the gospel.. in the book of Acts

No.

On the Day of Pentecost about 120 people were baptized in the Spirit and spoke with tongues. Some of the languages were understood by those around them. Then Peter stood and preached to them all in a language all could understand.

After the Samaritans were saved and baptized in water in Acts chapter 8, the Jerusalem church sent Peter and John to minister the Holy Spirit Baptism to them. When they spoke with tongues, there would be nobody there to preach to.

Same with those of the household of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Peter preached to them in a language they understood. They believed what Peter preached and suddenly they began to speak with tongues as they were baptized in the Spirit. Again, there was nobody to preach to in tongues.

In Acts 19 when Paul found some disciples there and asked if they had received the Holy Spirit. They obviously understood him and he understood them. When they received the Holy Ghost Baptism later when he laid hands on them the record says they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Again, there was no need of preaching in tongues.

From examples in the Book of Acts, the Holy Ghost Baptism is seen as an experience available to all who have been converted. It is some times recorded that folks spoke with tongues after they received the experience and some times tongues are not mentioned. Based on the records of speaking with tongues in the Book of Acts, some have concluded that the Holy Ghost Baptism is always accompanied with speaking with tongues and others have not reached that conclusion.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

The baptism in the Spirit produces godliness in us.

Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

But the fruit (end-result, culmination) of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Acts 1:8 (New International Version)
8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

My thoughts, too. Also, doesn't it say somewhere that the Holy Ghost is the power of the resurrection or something like that? I can't remember the exact quote, but I've heard it preached that if you don't have the Holy Ghost, you will not be resurrected.

[SDG]

I see no record that the eunuch spoke in tongues in Acts 8.