What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

[JBO]

And why would anyone (especially anyone who has read the writings of Paul) assume they would not be saved?

But, my post was about using basic logic skills. Which seem to be sorely lacking.

Logic demands that in Mark 16:16 both believing and being baptized are the conditions for being saved. The conjunction is "and" which means that both serve as conditions together. The logic demands that if either is lacking, then the condition for being saved has not been met.

 

[Lambano]

Logic demands that in Mark 16:16 both believing and being baptized are the conditions for being saved. The conjunction is "and" which means that both serve as conditions together. The logic demands that if either is lacking, then the condition for being saved has not been met.

No, and you don't understand how to analyze an IF (A AND B) THEN C statement. If the predicate clause is not satisfied, you can conclude nothing. What you can conclude is that if C is not true, then either A or B or both are not true. Mark further refines his IF-THEN statement in verse 15 with verse 16, focusing solely on NOT A (unbelief). NOT B (lack of baptism) is not addressed.

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic:

Can a believer be a part of the Body of Christ without being water baptized?

On another topic we were discussing baptisms. I think the actual subject of the topic was the evidence for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. But somehow we veered into questions about water baptism and salvation. At least one individual had strong feelings about the necessity of water baptism...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Logic demands that in Mark 16:16 both believing and being baptized are the conditions for being saved. The conjunction is "and" which means that both serve as conditions together. The logic demands that if either is lacking, then the condition for being saved has not been met.

Is this a misquote?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through baptism—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

If so, what should it say?

[

 

[JBO]

No, and you don't understand how to analyze an IF (A AND B) THEN C statement. If the predicate clause is not satisfied, you can conclude nothing. What you can conclude is that if C is not true, then either A or B or both are not true. Mark further refines his IF-THEN statement in verse 15 with verse 16, focusing solely on NOT A (unbelief). NOT B (lack of baptism) is not addressed.

Yeah, I am quite familiar with IF A and B then C. If both A and B are true, then C is true. If either A or B is not true, it doesn't matter whether the other is true or not. Why bother to address it? It is not an IF and only IF A and B then C. Thus knowing the condition of C says nothing about either A or B.

 

[JBO]

Is this a misquote?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through baptism—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

If so, what should it say?

As someone I won't name here said, "How can you say you believe (have faith) in God and not do what He says?"

 

[Lambano]

It is not an IF and only IF A and B then C.

So, why do we treat Mark 16:15-16 as though it were an IIF (A*B) => C statement as in post 681?

 

[Wick Stick]

Is this a misquote?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through baptism—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

If so, what should it say?

[

The original says though faith, but faith (aka belief aka repentance)... it is a part of baptism.

 

[JBO]

So, why do we treat Mark 16:15-16 as though it were an IIF (A*B) => C statement as in post 681?

Nothing in post 681 treats Mark 16:16 as a logical IFF function. Interestingly, although I believe that it truly is an IFF function, it is not Mark 16:16 that states it to be so.

 

[DJT_47]

I do, and I reckon many others would like to model their practice of Christianity after that of the early church.

Also... yes, that is a validation. If the people who lived in the era Scripture was written interpreted it a certain way... why is your version different?

I do believe them; I have not contradicted them. I only contradicted YOU, because you made the completely-false-claim that there is no record of churches delaying baptism until they were sure that converts were... real converts. There are many records of that happening.

Who do you think is closer to the authentic practices of Jesus and the apostles? Today's church, or the ones that personally met them? This should be a no-brainer.

Follow the scriptures not the so-called "early church" which which as I indicated, was already going astray as the scriptures were being penned.

Have you not read the 1st three chapters of Revelation and the message Jesus had for the 7 "early churches" of Asia? And from that point the "early church" in general terms, got worse! What did the "early church" denigrate to? I could go on to name some of the organizations that morphed out of the "early church" and became their own churches, not at all resembling the scriptural church. You can't confuse the church of the bible with what is commonly referred to as the "early church" say like in the few centuries that proceeded, and today we have literally thousands of difuse branches or offshoots of the true, scriptural church. And don't make reference to today's church as though it were one body; it's not, and it's worse than ever! I believe the church of the bible CAN be replicated today by following the scriptural guidelines and pattern, not necessarily by following the teachings and practices of the "early church", which is somewhat nebulous. You can evangelize, and generate baptized believers in new locales, establish an eldership, with deacons, ministers, etc, and have a new, true, local body of Christ today anywhere in the world; Its done all the time. And yes, there were, and are, good congregations, but there are way more congregations today consisting of nothing at all resembling the church of the bible, some of which organizations embody thousands of people! I think we have to be careful in what we follow and what we describe as the church, early or otherwise. Not all religious so-called Christian bodies are truly the body of Christ, most of which don't have a clear understanding of how souls are saved.

 

[DJT_47]

This is speaking figuratively of the Flood (as a sort of baptism) and Noah being saved.
Here's the context.

1 Peter 3:18-21 NIV
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,
to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
19 After being made alive,[a] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah
while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—
not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[b]
It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—
with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

[

It doesn't matter. It still says baptism does now save us. It says what it says, which can't be refuted or unsaid. If it says baptism saves us, then baptism saves us!

 

[St. SteVen]

As someone I won't name here said, "How can you say you believe (have faith) in God and not do what He says?"

Let's be honest. No one does everything he says. How are you doing on this list?

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons.
Freely you have received; freely give.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

No, and you don't understand how to analyze an IF (A AND B) THEN C statement. If the predicate clause is not satisfied, you can conclude nothing. What you can conclude is that if C is not true, then either A or B or both are not true. Mark further refines his IF-THEN statement in verse 15 with verse 16, focusing solely on NOT A (unbelief). NOT B (lack of baptism) is not addressed.

I think if there is belief (A), then God will bestow the Holy Spirit (secret letter D), and then the water (B) becomes a bit of a moot point.

 

[St. SteVen]

In a previous topic we explored why the baptized believers in Samaria hadn't received the Holy Spirit.

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit?

The typical response to the question about the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, is tongues.
But when I read the book of the Acts of the Apostles, I see it is not limited to tongues.
I conclude that any manifestation of the Holy Spirit could be the initial evidence.

Would you limit the initial evidence to speaking in tongues?

Here are the scriptures that led to my conclusions on this.

Acts 10:46 NIV
For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God. ...

Acts 19:6 NIV
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them,
and they spoke in tongues[a] and prophesied.

[

 

[Carl Emerson]

Certainly wasn't with me.

 

[St. SteVen]

Certainly wasn't with me.

I concluded that any manifestation of the Holy Spirit could be the initial evidence.

Are you saying that you had no manifestation of the Holy Spirit as evidence?

[

 

[JBO]

Let's be honest. No one does everything he says. How are you doing on this list?

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons.
Freely you have received; freely give.

[

That same person said, "I try to live as if I believed in God", meaning "I try to do what He says". And that is about as good as anyone can do.

 

[Berserk]

Classic Pentecostal pneumatology identifies tongues as the unique initial evidence of Spirit baptism.
They rightly base this inference from this fact: in 4 of the 5 instances of an initial reception of the Spirit,
possession the Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. This pattern is sufficient evidence the paradigm that tongues in the key sign, regardless of the one-time mention of praysing God or prophesying as part of the experience. Support for this sign significance can found in Paul's expressed wish that everyone speak in tongues and his expression of gratitude that he speaks in tonues "more than you.all."

Still, the fact that neither Paul nor Luke explcitly specify tingues as the only unique evidence for reception of the Spirit leaves the door open for experience to contradict such a black-and-white rule and expectation. My twofold concern is (1) many Christians confuse the divinely intended initial experience of Spirit power with their belief that, as Christians, they must have the Spirit as a matter of doctrine. And in my view most alleged experiences ofttongues are the bouus result of wishful thinking as this experience can easily be mechanicially contrived.
So I shudder to ask myself how many truly born again believers are out there! In my own case, when I spoke in tongues at age `16, eyewitnesses later told me they watched in awe as my face glowed in the darkening amphitheater by the lake, as wave aftter wave of liquid love, each more powerful than the last, sporred on my tongues in by far the high point of my life. A skeptical Lutheran minister interrtuped my prayer seswsion to tell me he didn['t believe in tongues and was just there as an interesed observer. I simply touched his forehead and he then immediately exploded in other tongues. After this experience I realize that some of prior experiences of tongues, though ecstatic, were of the flieah.

 

[Truther]

Classic Pentecostal pneumatology identifies tongues as the unique initial evidence of Spirit baptism.
They rightly base this inference from this fact: in 4 of the 5 instances of an initial reception of the Spirit,
possession the Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. This pattern is sufficient evidence the paradigm that tongues in the key sign, regardless of the one-time mention of praysing God or prophesying as part of the experience. Support for this sign significance can found in Paul's expressed wish that everyone speak in tongues and his expression of gratitude that he speaks in tonues "more than you.all."

Still, the fact that neither Paul nor Luke explcitly specify tingues as the only unique evidence for reception of the Spirit leaves the door open for experience to contradict such a black-and-white rule and expectation. My twofold concern is (1) many Christians confuse the divinely intended initial experience of Spirit power with their belief that, as Christians, they must have the Spirit as a matter of doctrine. And in my view most alleged experiences ofttongues are the bouus result of wishful thinking as this experience can easily be mechanicially contrived.
So I shudder to ask myself how many truly born again believers are out there! In my own case, when I spoke in tongues at age `16, eyewitnesses later told me they watched in awe as my face glowed in the darkening amphitheater by the lake, as wave aftter wave of liquid love, each more powerful than the last, sporred on my tongues in by far the high point of my life. A skeptical Lutheran minister interrtuped my prayer seswsion to tell me he didn['t believe in tongues and was just there as an interesed observer. I simply touched his forehead and he then immediately exploded in other tongues. After this experience I realize that some of prior experiences of tongues, though ecstatic, were of the flieah.

Don’t knock speaking in tongues until you’ve tried it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I concluded that any manifestation of the Holy Spirit could be the initial evidence.

Are you saying that you had no manifestation of the Holy Spirit as evidence?

[

No but the main gift that manifest was discernment. I fact I had some fluency in tongues before receiving the BHS the difference was a very deep repentance - and this happened in a church that didn't even believe in it.