“Note that these were apparently disciples of John the baptist, who taught all that came to him that he was simply the messenger coming ahead of the Messiah.”
And so these were not Christian believers at all, but simply disciples of John who “had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost,” and who converted when they heard the Messiah was Jesus Christ, as John had prepared them to expect:
Act 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard THIS, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.
Therefore, your conclusion that these were Christians walking around without the Holy Spirit are all false.
“‘Just to clarify’? You should have worded that ‘Just to personally interpret’.”
How do you “personally interpret” this some other way?
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
” That is why they used the name of Jesus in EVERY detailed baptism in the book of Acts:”
Those are merely commands, emphasizing Christ since it is the Christian religion they were being baptized into. It wasn’t the actual baptism scene described, which is never described in detail, since all believers would probably be aware of the Baptismal formula.
“John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY name..” (that would be Jesus).”
Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.
“When describing the wind, Jesus said that the ONE aspect you could be CERTAIN of is the ‘sound’ of the wind.”
This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.” There was no emphasis on the sound at all, or any idea that the sound is separate from the metaphor of the wind. You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth.” He is doing nothing more than describing the sound of wind, which is all a metaphorical answer to Nicodemus’ question “How can a man be born when he is old?”
The meaning, being simply, that the Holy Spirit is a Free Agent (He moves where He listith), that His working is as powerful as the force of the wind (for he describes the Spirit like wind), and yet it is subtle and as mysterious as the wind (you cannot tell where it cometh or where it goeth), completely unknowable to the natural man (1 Co 2:14).
“Do you think that the observers, on the day of Pentecost, thought that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were drunk just because they were speaking in other languages?”
Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk. The idea that the Apostles were stumbling around, flopping like fish on the ground, is simply ridiculous, and if it was so, then everyone would have thought them drunk, even if they were speaking their languages while flopping about on the floor.
“But, from my own past experience of denying the power of God, I recommend that you don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt, etc.”
Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true. I’ve been told that I would face “judgment,” that God would strike me down, that God would do this or that. But it’s never happened, and, in fact, my faith has become a living faith, moreso than it ever was before. What a wrathful God, who punishes me with freedom and blessings that I never had when I was with those miracle-mongers! So, I think I’m A-OK in denying all your experiences, especially those of the Oneness Pentecostals, as I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit would work through someone who denies His identity.
“No, there is no mention of cloven tongues of fire, or an earthquake at Cornelius house.”
By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.
“IMO, not only do you seem to judge of men’s souls, you seem to have connections from every corner of the world, from every decade since the writing of the book of Acts, and seem proclaim that there were no tongues for almost 2,000 years.”
I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?
**Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.**
You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about. Which would make one wonder how they would have even known about John’s baptism.
**How do you “personally interpret” this some other way? Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:**
Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).
**Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit.**
Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME. What name do you use since you seem to prefer to contradict him?
**The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.**
If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3018091/posts?page=1245#1245
**This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.”**
He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me. And that it would be so for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.
**You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth**
You accuse me of not putting things in context, and then you leave off the rest of that verse as though the Lord has completely changed the subject at that point.
And the drunken issue?
**Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk.**
The ones that said “..these men are full of new wine.” are not accused of not knowing the languages the converts were speaking. Peter even clarified it for all present: “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is the third hour of the day.” Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.
Flopping like fish? You certainly like to go the extreme. My wife will admit to getting drunk several times before I met her (in a bar). But, she says she never was down on the floor.
**Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true.**
I intended it as a caution, hardly a threat. But, call what you want. From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended, I guess I wouldn’t lose any sleep over any supposed threats from them either. I just know what happened to me when I dissed the Acts 2:38 message. Some are more noble than others in receiving the whole gospel, such as Cornelius, Apollos, and the certain disciples in Ephesus.
**By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.**
“I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.
**I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?
So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:
Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of SINS: Is it of heaven, or of men?