"For we are all baptized byone Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given one Spirit to drink" (I Corinthians 12:13).
"Christian baptism has two facets, human and Divine. Christ baptizes in the one Spirit those who yield themselves to him as servants of righteousness in the baptism of water. Together they constitute the 'one baptism' of Ephesians 4:5" (Russell Boatman).
In Acts 2:17, Peter, quoting the Old Testament prophet Joel, says, "In the last days, God says, 'I will pour out my Spirit on all people." Now what I understand Peter to mean by "all people" is all people who come to Jesus for salvation regardless of age, sex, race, economic achievement or political persuasion. The Holy Spirit is not for a select few, but for all who come to Jesus!
The sign that credentialed Peter, and the others speaking at Pentecost was the 'speaking in tongues as the Spirit enabled them' (Acts 2:4). In Acts 10:44 it was the household of Cornelius that received the credentialing sign, just as the apostles received it at Pentecost. It was by this sign that Peter overcame his Jewish prejudice and recognized this family as proper candidates for water baptism. The Jewish Christians needed to understand that God had granted salvation to the Gentiles too (Acts 11:18).
The point I want to make is that speaking in tongues in these instances was a credentialing sign, but not required for baptism in the Holy Spirit. Suppose I should be found speaking in another language I had never learned, as the apostles did at Pentecost, I would not hesitate to claim the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Suppose I should be found loving as Christ loves or be found at peace in the midst of trial--that is not my natural spirit. Could I not also claim the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
We still have to contend with the world, the flesh and the devil. It is not easy! "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:24-25). Though we lose some battles we find courage to fight on because of the Holy Spirit within us. The Holy Spirit's presence is our guarantee of salvation!
Grace&Peace;
Tom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi, I just read your blog post today (and the previous one about Baptisma versus Baptismos). I am preaching from Hebrews 6:1-3 this Sunday, one of those tricky passages that uses the -mos suffix as opposed to the -ma suffix and a Google search led me to your blog as I am researching.
I want to respond to the last paragraph of this article and get your thoughts. You have suggested that the Baptism in the Spirit terminology could be used for either an experience of speaking in another language that you did not previously know, and also if you were found to be expressing love in ways that are not natural to you.
I would suggest that the first is a great Biblical example of Baptism in the HS because it is associated with a particular 'vocational empowerment' and is in line with the way the HS has functioned in the life of the believer from the beginning of the OT.
The expression of love, however, is an internal 'characteristic' more in line with Paul's fruit of the Spirit.
Paul's discussions of the role of the HS always center around salvation and sanctification and he never uses the term Baptism in the Spirit to describe these. In fact, Romans 8:9 suggests that we are heirs to this from the moment we accept Christ.
Luke's discussion of the role of the HS always centers around empowerment and is an extension and broadening of the work of the HS in the OT. Luke is also the only biblical author to use the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The function of the HS that Paul writes about (salvation, sanctification) has no OT root, except in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Jeremiah which speak of a day when the law will be written on our hearts. This is fulfilled in the NT.
Therefore, since Paul's discussions of the HS and Luke's discussions of the HS have such different origins in the OT, and Paul never refers to Baptism in the HS, I am not sure if your last paragraph could be defended exegetically.
What are your thoughts?
Post a Comment