Commonly Asked Questions Re: Holy Ghost Synopsis Pg.’s 1 & 2

1. Is there a difference between being filled with the Holy Ghost and receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

This question was rendered early on and due to it’s repetition I’ve decided to deal with it here in a more exclusive manner.

As noted in the synopsis, I believe that scripture teaches that when one is brought into Christ through saving faith one is baptized into Jesus. By virtue of that statement one cannot be baptized into Jesus without also being baptized into the Holy Ghost. That baptism is one of identification with Christ. (John 3:3, Mark 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, Gal. 2:20), but NOT one of being filled with the spirit or being baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Being baptized in the Holy Ghost is a process that occurs with the act of regeneration. Now there is much debate over when regeneration actually occurs. I would agree that regeneration of the Spirit is an act of God that begins at the moment of salvation or when saving faith is exercised in the propitiation of Jesus atonement on the Cross. (Rom 5:1, Rom.10: 9-10, 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15) Being in Christ is an instantaneous act of God (1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 6:10, Heb 10:9) This is the act of spiritual identification, however this (being in Christ) is NOT the act of being filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:4) although elements of being filled occur at that moment in the life of the believer (Ephesians 5:17, Gal. 5:22-23). Being or coming into Christ is not the act of being Baptized with Holy Ghost (Acts 11:16, Mark 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16) although elements of Spirit Baptism exist in the life of the believer at that moment and beyond (Gal. 3:27).

So to answer the question, distinctions must be made. There is a spiritual baptism that covers both identification with Christ (Rom.10: 9-10, 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15) and leads to the empowerment of the believer (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:4, Acts 11:16). So being baptized and filled although technically are not one in the same, are yet used synonymously within scripture.{Contrast Acts 2:4 to Acts 11:16}. Therefore, for the church to preach a “Spirit Baptism” with “the evidence of speaking in tongues” is scriptural according to Mark 16:17, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44, Acts 8:14-17, and Acts 19: 5-6.

Those who believe that one is not saved until one is filled with the Spirit (or speaks in tongues), or that one is filled with the Spirit upon exercising saving faith would not agree with my statements. Although I would believe in the validity of their confession, (1 Cor. 13:7) I would also believe that my statements are more biblically accurate and scripturally sound for the following reasons:

1. Sinners cannot be filled with the Spirit or baptized in the Holy Ghost as demonstrated under the New Covenant established through Jesus.
2. Identification with Christ occurs through the act of salvation but the New Testament teaches by precept and example that the work of the Spirit is ongoing and all believers are instructed to receive power as a natural part of that process. (Mark 16:17, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, Acts 8: 15-17, Acts 9:17, Acts 10:34-46, Acts 19:5-6)
3. The reception of that power as specified in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8 is more than a tongue. It is coupled with a sanctified or holy lifestyle which should have already begun as a part of the regenerative process at salvation (Gal. 5:22-23, 1 John 3:3, 2 Peter 3:11, 1 Thess. 4:4, 2 Tim. 2:21, Heb. 12:14) as evidence of such fruitful work of the Spirit within the believer’s life and empowerment.

2. Why is there a need for the sign gifts in the modern New Testament Church? Shouldn’t the revelation of the word be sufficient?

This subject looses many who rely on the strict “letter” of the word scriptural interpretive. (2 Cor. 3:6) The precept is this, God moves among HIS people as HE chooses and demonstrates HIS precept through scripture. Doctrine and scriptural learning is not solely confined to the scriptural didactic. Two examples of preceptual learning is the use of the Sabbath. Jesus changed the whole understanding of God’s word on the Sabbath around in Mark 2:27-28. Another is the Trinity. Although never taught by God or any prophet, the precept is DEMONSTRATED throughout the word of God from Genesis to Revelation.

The “sign gifts” were observed in the early church as a demonstration and display of God’s hand among God’s people. Hebrews 2:4 teaches that the signs and wonders bore witness of God among the people. Paul even taught that the people had experienced exceptional signs of power to confirm his Apostleship (2 Cor. 2:12). However scripture also demonstrates that not all signs and wonders were limited to the Apostles or Apostolic authority. In fact Acts 6:8 specifies that Deacon Stephen did “great wonders and miracles” among the people. Later Deacon Philip, (not the Apostle) (Acts 8:6-7,13) was used in great signs, miracles and even was able to cast out devils. Ephes. 4:8 says that when he (Jesus) ascended he gave “gifts unto men” this was later evidenced in Acts 2:4 and 1 Cor. 12.

The gifts were given to the church for the church to be edified (1 Cor. 12:7) and to receive of Jesus to HIS glorification (John 16:14) and be our comforter according to scripture in John 14, 15 and 16.The synopsis point to many other functions of the Spirit. There is NO scripture that has given an expiration date for the gifts of the Spirit.

As a reader you are probably questioning why I am speaking of the Holy Ghost and not exclusively the Spiritual Gifts. My reasoning is as such, since the gifts were given by God to the Church and the Holy Ghost is God and as God is the author of the gifts, they cannot be separated from HIS nature. To the point the question is a misunderstanding of the nature of God as it relates to the better covenant through Jesus Christ.

• The gifts were not merely to verify Apostleship although they did.
• The gifts were not merely to provide canonical information although they did.
• The gifts were not merely to cause the sinner to come to saving faith although they did
• The gifts were not merely to provide direction to the Saints although they did.
• The gifts were not merely to build the church although they did.

The gifts were used in diverse manners within the context of the early church. Even though the word was being established, published and preached, the gifts were yet in operation even beyond 2^nd and 3^rd Century by verifiable historical record.

Our modern understanding hems us into thinking that there is only one way that the gifts were to be exercised and used within the church because it is comfortable for many of us to limit the experience of God to that we are comfortable in apprehending. Neither history or traditional practice are barometers for the word of God to the church. Among things that we learn through biblical history is how quickly men get off track and violate the word of God either by sins of commission or omission. When trying to understand the spiritual gifts within the context of the modern church, begin with the written record and ALL things are subject to it.

Is there anyone reading this, that can truly say that we do not need miracles, or any of the gifts specified in scripture today? Our times although more modern in convenience are marked by as much or more evil than that of the historic church. The WORD, the gifts and all that God has is essential for the individual and church survival today. Those who abuse the gifts and ministry of the Spirit SHOULD NOT be our standard for disallowing the healthy and vibrant practice of the Spiritual gifts within the context of the modern church.