Anonymous' comment to the last blog article, In view of Acts 19 and "rebaptism", I find it interesting that we don't generally "rebaptize" folks, who were baptized with no knowledge of the Holy Spirit, is most important. The text in Acts addresses questions toward Christians, Did you receive the Spirit when you were baptized?
This is the reason for nearly all of the rebaptisms I experience. When in school we were taught that Acts 2:38's reference to the gift of the Spirit was not the Holy Spirit himself we received, but the gift of salvation. I went along with it as the argument seemed to fit. But, I don't believe it today. I think the passage speaks to our sins being forgiven and the Holy Spirit moving into the Christian's new life for activity.
I wouldn't want to make what I'm about to say as law for I am far too weak in my understanding. Yet, it seems to me the mistaken teaching on Acts 2:38 has been hazardous to the church's health. We have had generations baptized by immersion into John's baptism instead of Christ's while saying we have done the opposite. Yet the fruit of argumentative and divisive walks substantiates my view. The church fusses and fights as it cannot possibly bear the fruit of the One it denies. Thus, we are stuck with us.
I would suggest the church adjust its teaching regarding the Holy Spirit for it is a vital part of the God-head. There were not two. There are three.
5 comments:
Thank you Terry for articulating the truth on this verse. I agree and I also believe that as the church accepts and employs this truth, they will see great things being done by God in their lives and in their churches. Until then, it will be business meetings as usual.
Roger Thompson
My thoughts exactly--we've practiced John's baptism, which was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Baptism into Christ brings the Holy Spirit into our lives. It does no good to say Jesus rose from the dead if we are going to "kill and bury the Holy Spirit." (BTW word verification is "remessin"--My problem is I keep remessin my sins instead of accepting remission of sins :)
Interesting, but it seems to me that the emphasis in Acts 19:1-7 is on whether or not the people were baptized into the name of Jesus rather than their total understanding of what the baptism would entail.
Can anyone else help me out here ... am I missing something?
I agree with westcoastwitness.
It seems that baptism in the ancient eastern world included signing-up to follow a powerful leader, a corporate Head.
That's why John said to Jesus, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" (Matt. 3:14 NIV).
And it's why Paul said the ancient Jews were "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10:2).
The men in Acts 19 had signed up under the wrong head, since they had only been baptized into John.
And since Jesus is the only One who baptizes in the Spirit...
(Terry - I've been writing more about the Holy Spirit and true spirituality since you were here for our Prayer Workshop in September. You can see some of it at http://prayertalk.blogspot.com)
Acts 19--Proof they had not been baptized into Jesus was the fact that they did not know about the Holy Spirit.
Post a Comment