The Distinction Between Being "Filled" and "Baptized" in the Holy Ghost

I wanted to start a new thread to discuss this topic as I hope others have much additional insight. BEING FILLED WITH THE SPIRITIn Christian theology, Pneumatology refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. In orthodox Christian doctrine, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. When reading Ephesians 5:18 we have both a negative and a positive commandment. We are not to be drunk with wine wherein is excess, this is the negative command; but rather are to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for ‘filled’ is pleroo (play-ro'-o) and it means to cram a net, to fill a void, or to furnish an office. There is a void in our soul and spirit that has to be filled. Everyone’s ‘void’ is filled with something. There is a 'house' that Christ has swept and garnished and it needs to be furnished. There is a net that we cast seeking to fill ourselves with cares and pleasures that can only be truly 'filled' with the Holy Ghost. Whether with wine or the Spirit of God or something else (that leads to excess), everyone is filled with something.Everyone has something that influences them, captures their love and zeal, and provides the very fuel for their behavior. The word ‘excess’ is translated in the NKJV as ‘dissipation’- which is “reckless gratification of the senses.” Herein is the key to understanding one of the great reasons you must be filled with the Spirit; what fills you, to a great extent, controls you. If we are to walk in the Spirit we must be filled with the Spirit. The proportion of our fullness will dictate our proportion of walking in the Spirit. All May Be Filled With The SpiritEvery genuine born again believer may be filled with the Spirit. As Finney points out, not because God is somehow forced to give you His Spirit because of our goodness, etc., but because He has promised to give it to those that ask. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). If you ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit, God has promised to give Him to you. Moreover, God has commanded you to be filled with Him. He says in Ephesians 5:18, "Be filled with the Spirit." When God commands us to do something, it is the highest possible evidence that we can do it. God has no way righteously to command something, unless we have ability to obey. What tyranny would be leveled upon a God that commanded things that were impossible to obey? Nay! Everyone may be filled with the Spirit; else God had not commanded it. Am I Filled MERELY Because I Can Speak With Tongues?When we speak of being filled with the Spirit we are not merely talking about “speaking in tongues.” Xenoglossolalic Tongues in Classical Pentecostalism is considered "the initial outward evidence" of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost and provides a person with the means of praying in tongues and being filled with the Holy Ghost perpetually by the use of that means; but, I think it can be clearly demonstrated that the manifestation of tongues is not necessarily evidence of fullness. A person who is genuinely filled with the Spirit lives a victorious life over sin and walks in communion with God almost continually. Ye shall receive POWER after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you. Moreover, some were baptized and spoke the word with BOLDNESS.(Various MEANS of Fulness)Additional means of fullness is the reading of God’s word (which His words are Spirit and life) and prayer with unutterable groanings in the Spirit. Prayer in which the Spirit of God comes upon the person to the point of great anguish and travail goes a long way towards refilling that person with the fullness of the Spirit of God. Singing to yourselves in psalms and hymns which glorify God is also a means of inviting the Holy Ghost. Add these means to praying in the Holy Ghost (tongues) and you have a recipe for being FULL of the Holy Ghost and power continually if you exercise them. There have also been many occasions in the pre New Testament period when people were instantly filled by God's sovereign will and required no means- only God's action. God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertThanks for raising this theme; I think it ought to be helpful to many.I think there are three verses which tie together the concept of 'be being filled with the Spirit'. A little exegesis first from the text; And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (Eph 5:18 KJV) This could literally be translated; be not wine drunken, wherein is dissolution, but be being filled in/by spirit. There are some things to note here. 1. The first 'with' is not in the original, but the meaning is obvious as it stands. 2. The second 'with' is actually the Greek word 'en' which usually means 'within' but can also mean instrumentatily. For example, to slay with the sword, would literally be to slay 'by' the sword where the sword is the instrument of the slaying.3. there is no definite article preceding the word 'spirit'so technically it might mean the human spirit or the Holy Spirit, but the use of 'en' as the instrument makes it clear that this is the Holy Spirit.4. the 'be filled' is the present imperative form of the present. The Greek present tense is much more like our present continuous and has the sense of 'continue to'. For example; continue asking and ye shall receive; continue seeking and ye shall find; continue knocking and it shall be opened to you. (Luke 11:9,10) So the ISV captures the sense well; Stop getting drunk with wine, which leads to wild living, but keep on being filled with the Spirit. (Eph 5:18 ISV) It is also in the passive form which implies that it is something which we must allow to happen to us. We cannot 'fill ourselves' with the Spirit, but we can, and must, continue to be open to his continuing supply.The key thing to note is that Paul is referring to a continual process, not a single event. The other two verses with link with the idea are..He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you--by works of law or by the hearing of faith is it ?(Gal 3:5 YLT)For I have known that this shall fall out to me for salvation, through your supplication, and the supply of the Spirit of Christ Jesus,(Phi 1:19 YLT)In both of these verses Paul refers to the 'supply of the Spirit'. It is really 'further supply', the supply on top of the supply. (epi-chorēgeō) This is Spirit on top of Spirit. The picture is not of the static condition of having been filled, but of additional supplies of the same Spirit. This is process.Luke wrote both the Gospel and the Acts and he uses the idea of being filled with the Spirit in two senses. He uses it as an event; Zecharias.. was filled with the Holy Spirit. When he does this he uses a verb; this is not a process but a crisis event. He also uses the phrase full of the Holy Spirit; For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. (Act 11:24 KJV) When he uses this phrase he is using a noun; this is a state of being. So Luke uses the idea of a crisis event; they were filled, and the idea of a settled state; full. Paul's use of be being filled is quite different to both of these: Paul is referring to a continuous process of cooperation with God. The Geneva Bible has an interesting translation for the Ephesian verse; And be not drunke with wine, wherein is excesse: but be fulfilled with the Spirit,(Eph 5:18 GB) This is the brilliance of Tyndale appearing again. Tyndale knows that the word does not imply the slow filling up of an empty vessel, but the maintenance of fulness in the vessel. The Normal Christian Life is fulness; and Paul is admonishing us to keep it so. This is partly why it is important to understand that the full sense of this verse is not 'be filled' but 'be being filled'. It is the picture of a full pot remaining under the tap. There is not going to be much room for 'other things' if the pot stays full.So Luke uses the ideas of crises and state; filled and full, while Paul uses the idea of process; the continuing supply to something already full.I'll leave you to digest this before we include 'baptism in the Spirit' into the mix. :-?

Hi Brother Ron,Thats some awesome stuff there. It ought to be in the articles section. I wonder if you would concur that if a person is filled somehow (if I may use the term loosely) with SELF that there is less room, as it were, for complete fulness. Sort of like a pitcher of Ice Being filled up with water. If the ice (which takes up space) were plastic then the pitcher would run over- but it is not truly full of water. Do you think that being "FULL" of the Holy ghost implies and emptying out first in order for that fulness to to be fulfilled?God Bless,-Robert

I wonder if you would concur that if a person is filled somehow (if I may use the term loosely) with SELF that there is less room, as it were, for complete fulness. Sort of like a pitcher of Ice Being filled up with water. If the ice (which takes up space) were plastic then the pitcher would run over- but it is not truly full of water. Do you think that being "FULL" of the Holy ghost implies and emptying out first in order for that fulness to to be fulfilled?Hi RobertIf Greg thinks they have a place in the articles section, I'm happy.The difficulty with your question is that we have moved the ground from scripture to illustration. I have problems with the concept of 'self'. I think we are drifting into psychology. I have made it a personal discipline for some years to force myself to use biblical language to define or describe 'soul conditions'.I think the image of 'full' always implies no room for anything else. I think if the pressure of the water from the tap is adequate it will soon sort out any debris in the vessel! ;-) Although I do believe that souls are capable of increasing their capacity, so yesterday's fullness might be todays 90%.

BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRITAs a general rule NO REAL DISTINCTION is generally made by Classical Pentecostals as to the use of the terms "Baptism in the Holy Ghost" and "Filled with the Holy Ghost." This is because the term "Filled" is used loosely to describe the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. It is also because scripture uses the phrase "And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost..." seemingly interchangably with Spirit baptism. The PURPOSE for my making this distinction is to show that the phenomena of the Baptism is a near instantaneous act of God that is not progressive. The other means of fulness mentioned in the previous section require an ongoing effort to build to a level of fulness. Baptism in the Holy Ghost is an empowerment that comes on a believer in such a way that they are immediately filled with the Spirit and enabled to speak with xenoglossolalic utterance and unction. Baptism into Jesus Christ by the SpiritWhen a person repents, believes, and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in a genuine Born Again experience, the Holy Spirit begins a great work in their life in which all old things pass away and all is become new. The Spirit convicts them of sin, convinces them of righteousness, and dwells within them (John 6:44; 14:17; Roman 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13). This baptism into Jesus Christ makes us members of the Body of Christ sealed with the Holy Ghost, the earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1),- the inner witness from which we cry ABBA Father. However, this is not to be confused with the Baptism of POWER for SERVICE that comes with the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. Baptism in the Holy Ghost There is an additional second work and distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Baptism is an empowering gift from God the Father that is promised to every believer (Matthew 3:11; Luke 11:13; 24:49; Acts 2:33, 38). It also helps the Christian to walk in the Spirit- bringing a new devotion to Jesus Christ. The primary purpose of the Baptism is to give greater power for witnessing (Acts 1:8) and produce great boldnessfor Christ from that fulness. The baptism in the Holy Ghost is an immediate infilling to overflowing from the submurgance into the Holy Spirit. This is a fullness to overflowing until the Spirit of God, as it were, is not just in you but overflowing and "upon you." This simply means more than enough of the Holy Ghost. More than enough power and conviction. More than enough of whatever you need to do in the Power of the Spirit what CANNOT be done in the flesh. God Bless,-Robert

As with emersion baptism, it is something I belive that only happens once.

Hi RobertIt is also because scripture uses the phrase "And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost..." seemingly interchangably with Spirit baptism.I don't believe these terms are fully interchangeable. eg when Luke refers to the events surrounding John Baptist's birth he says:For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. (Luk 1:15 KJV)And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: (Luk 1:41 KJV)And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, (Luk 1:67 KJV)but this is not the same as saying that John, Elizabeth and Zacharias were all baptised in the Spirit.Luke uses the phrase 'were filled with the Holy Spirit' to signify a crisis event of the Spirit in the life of the individual. It is a generic term and we have to examine the context to further define the event. The way that Luke uses this terms signifies that although all events of baptism in the Spirit can be referred to as 'were filled with the Spirit', not all events of 'were filled with the Spirit' can be referred to as 'baptism in the Spirit'. For Luke all sudden events of the Spirit are referred to as 'were filled with the Spirit' within that whole group of events we can identify at least one sub-set which we can call 'baptism in the Spirit'. The other events in the whole groupe seem to be empowerings of the kind that we see in the John Baptist narrative. Specific enablings for specific function; this would be very much the Old Testament pattern.Luke uses the phrase 'were filled with the Spirit' in the narrative of the Acts too.Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Act 4:8 KJV) Here 'filled' is the Aorist tense of the verb indicating a single act. It is not a description of Peter's condition but a record of an event.And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. (Act 4:31 KJV) Here 'filled' is also in the Aorist. Again this is not the description of the pray-ers but the record of an event.Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, (Act 13:9 KJV) This is also in the Aorist and is another event.And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. (Act 13:52 KJV) Here 'filled' is in the imperfect tense, signifying that.. they were being filled.. with the Holy Spirit. This is a continuous process.Except for the last instance all these verses use the Aorist tense. The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar (ie at a specific point in time rather than a linear/process) action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. Luke's final reference here is in the Imperfect which is the continuous past tense; were being filled with/used to be filled with. This is the one time that Luke has the process in mind as Paul in Eph 5:18.I'll return to of the other points later DV.

I'll return to the other points later DV.Thanks Brother Ron! I greatly appreciate your insight into the Greek words. Please continue with this thread and develop these thoughts as they are very near to my heart and I believe others can well benefit from the study. I will be out of town until October 2nd or 3rd so I will probably not be anywhere I can reply. I look forward to taking it up again when we get back.God Bless!-Robert

Thanks Brother Ron! I greatly appreciate your insight into the Greek words. Please continue with this thread and develop these thoughts as they are very near to my heart and I believe others can well benefit from the study. I will be out of town until October 2nd or 3rd so I will probably not be anywhere I can reply. I look forward to taking it up again when we get back.It may be a little lonely, talking to myself, but I will do my best. :-P Here's a request for other readers. If these conversations become too exclusive please reel us in. When two bible students get talking it is easy to forget that others are listening. We want this forum to be of maximum service to the all SIers so please chirp up if some of the worms are going over your head. :-D

There are other phrases that LUke uses to describe the work of the Spirit in the life of individuals and of the church. The Spirit's work is a key topic in the writing of Luke, not only in the Acts but throughout the gospel. It is Luke who makes it clear that a 'stirring' was taking place at the time of Jesus' birth. WE have already referred to the work of the Spirit in the live of Zecharias, Elizabeth and John, but others too were experiencing the work of the Spirit.Simeon is a fascinating character in the scripture, and I would love to know more about him. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, (Luk 2:25-27 KJV). Just look at the life of this man! 1.the Spirit was upon him. The word 'was' is the Imperfect, that continuous past tense. This could be translated 'the Spirit used to be on him'. This is not a single crisis event but the record of a process.2. upon him. This is the normative experience of Old Testament saints who were 'anointed' by the Spirit to authorise and empower.3. This man had received a prophetic revelation 'by the Holy Spirit. 'by' is the word under. The picture is consistent, this man was 'under the influence' (not of alcohol!!) but of the Holy Spirit.4. He came 'by the Spirit' into the temple. 'by' here is 'en' and implies 'by the instrumentality of the Spirit'. In other words Simeon was Spirit-led.So we have a minor New Testament character upon whom the Holy Spirit habitually rests. The 'spirit' of prophecy had been rekindled in the nation. It is easy to miss the fact that this may well have been the first instance of prophecy for almost 400 years! (If we put Malachi at c400 BC). There have been 400 years in which God has been silent and as he was an old man it is most probable that his revelation that he would not die before he had seen Messiah came even before Gabriel's visit to Mary. Simeon's prophecy at the presentation of Jesus is the first New Testament pointer to the Suffering Messiah; And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Luk 2:34-35 KJV)Chronologically, our New Testament begins with Simeon.....or possibly with Anna; And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luk 2:36-37 KJV). Wouldn't you love to know more about these two senior citizens whose lives provide the prelude for the New Testament? Anna did not merely prophesy, as did Simion, she was a prophetess, and there are not too many of them in the Book. Luke doesn't give us any details of the Spirit's authorization or empowering in her life but we may safely assume that it would have similar ingredients to that of Simeon.Luke's account of Christ's water baptism and the coming of the Spirit is important. We need to keep in mind that in one sense Jesus of Nazareth was 'born of the Holy Spirit'. The mystery of his incarnation is expressed by Gabriel; And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 KJV) We must tread reverently here. Was this two separate acts of the Spirit or a Hebrew parallelism? (parallelism is feature of Hebrew poetry, saying the same thing with a slightly different emphasis) I am not going to try decide, not publically anyway. Let us simplify the revelation; Mary said, 'How?'. Gabriel said, 'The Holy Spirit'. The creed has it 'conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary'. In this sense Jesus of Nazareth was 'born' of the Spirit; He would never require 'regeneration'. After 30 years he was 'made manifest to Israel' through the testimony of John Baptist. John's commission is expressed in different ways; his work was the work of preparation and of identification. His work of preparation is expressed in the word 'Repent'; his work of identification is expressed in the word 'behold'. His testimony is recorded most fully in John's account; And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. (Joh 1:31-34 KJV) It is important to distinguish two quite different pictures of the Holy Spirit here; 1. upon Jesus of Nazareth He comes 'like a dove' 'descending and remaining on him'. Other than the initial arrival of the Spirit this is very similar to the language which described Simeon's experience. The Spirit comes, externally, and 'settles' upon Him. This is NOT Baptism in the Spirit. The concept of baptism can only ever be used with the words 'in' 'by' or 'with'. You can never 'baptise upon'; it is just impossible. But 'anointings' are 'upon' eg;It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; (Psa 133:2 KJV). This is an anointing and the natural preposition is 'upon'.I am stressing this because pentecostals have often referred to this event in the life of Christ as His 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'. It is important to a clear understanding of biblical teaching to understand that this was not Christ's baptism in Spirit. He never needed a 'baptism in Spirit' and later in this discussion we shall find out why others do need such a 'baptism in Spirit' while He did not. But He did need an anointing; this speaks of commissioning and enduing, authority and power. Later, as a direct result of this experience of the Spirit, He would say; ...The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luk 4:17-21 KJV) John Baptist witnessed the anointing of Jesus of Nazareth. The Hebrew word for an anointed one is Messiah; the Greek word is Christ. From this moment He moves into His mission as Jesus Christ. (He has not changed His nature or His identity, but He is now 'anointed'and 'sent'.)2.the second picture of the HOly Spirit in this narrative is that of 'baptism'. It is an entirely different picture to that of 'anointing'. Jesus of Nazareth was anointed and became The Christ. But John now reveals the mission of the Christ; And I did not know Him, but the One sending me to baptize in water, that One said to me, On whomever you see the Spirit coming down and abiding on Him, this is the One baptizing in the Holy Spirit. (Joh 1:33 LITV) (This 'one-baptizing' is the Present Participle preceded by the definite article; is signifies characterestic function. as would be the case in the 'one-bus-driving' for the bus-driver!) The construction is used of John Baptist himself; And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. (Mar 6:14 KJV) This is Ιωάννης ο βαπτίζων - John, the one baptizing. It is perfectly legitimate to translate this as John the Baptizer; it is also perfectly legitimate to translate John Baptist's testimony to Christ as 'the same is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit'.The thought is made very plain earlier in John's account and in all the gospel accounts; And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (Joh 1:33 KJV) John's testimony to the role of Jesus Christ was 'I am a water Baptizer; He is a Spirit Baptizer'. It is significant too that this controversial phrase 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' was the natural expression of a Baptizer.In the next excerpt we will trace the idea of baptism. Did you know that there are 4 hidden baptisms in the Old Testament? See if you can find them before the next session......to be continued.

Appendix 1Having said I want to keep this understandable for everyone I now post this appendix!! Unless you are a student of Biblical Greek, or would like to be, you can safely ignore this posting. I made some comments about the Aorist Tense in an earlier posting. Scholastic opinion is moving on this issue. All older Greek scholars will say something like: The aorist is strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action, being thus distinguished from the imperfect; and in the indicative mood it originally signifies past time. It is, however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need to make a direct expression of the circumstance. It is thus of constant use in the narrative of past transactions.More modern primers, eg Mounce "Basics of Biblical Greek" are strongly at odds with this opinion; The aorist is the indefinite tense that states only the fact of the action without specifying its duration. When the aorist describes an action as a unit event it may accentuate one of three possibilities, as, imagine, a ball that has been thrown: 1) let fly (inceptive or ingressive); 2)flew (constative or durative); 3)hit (culminative or telic) p193and further comments...the aorist tense has been often mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such intention. Having been warned of this error, we should not go to the other extreme and fail to see tht in some contexts the aorist does denote once-for-all-action...Translation, The aorist active is normally translated with the simple English past indicating undefined action. "I studied". Remember that aspectis primary, and all the aorist tells you is that an event occured; it tells you nothing more about the aspect of the event. And the aorist is not necessarily punctiliar; it is 'undefined'.Modern linguistic scholarship is very professional and these comments should be treated seriously, however, I would be slow to jettison the older view of the aorist when it was held by brilliant linguists of an earlier day. The most obvious use of the aorist is just as a past tense recording an event that had occured. This does not alter substantially anything I have said in the earlier postings but I thought for the benefit of some who are learning Biblical Greek it would be as well to caution them from my earlier absolute statements.

Philologos:Here's a request for other readers. If these conversations become too exclusive please reel us in. When two bible students get talking it is easy to forget that others are listening. We want this forum to be of maximum service to the all SIers so please chirp up if some of the worms are going over your head. What I gathered from these posts thus far:A. Associated with "being filled with the Spirit" are three NT usages - 1. Pauline usage -- "being filled with the Spirit" as an ongoing, continual process.2. Lukan usage #1 -- "full of the Spirit" as a state of being.3. Lukan usage #2 -- "filled with the Spirit" as a one-time crisis event.B. Concerning Jesus' baptism by John the Baptiser:1. Jesus' water baptism is an anointing by the Spirit (after the OT fashion?) to be distinguished from the believer's being baptised by the Holy Spirit.2. John pointed out that Jesus is the one who baptises the believers by the Holy Spirit.I like making summaries in a long discussion. So please correct me if I got any of this wrong. Hopefully this will help others who tried to follow too.Sam :-P

There are different ways of examining doctrine. We could begin with the statements of saint or denomination and check their conclusions against the facts. This is often the way classic doctrinal statements have emerged. The weakness of this method is that it is reactive. Someone says the answer is 'a' but on examination it is found unsatisfactory and we produce statement 'b'. However 'b' will almost certainly be expressed in terms of the weakness of 'a'; it is a reaction to 'a' rather than a self-standing expression of truth. The other method is to start from scratch and build it up slowly; this gives us 'c' which is not expressed in terms of 'a' or 'b'. Of course, when this expression of truth is erected we would need to compare it against 'a' and 'b'and subject it to the challenge of others. It is much more difficult to subject a denominational or confessional statement to challenge simply because it calls loyalties into question. So rather than reacting to 'a' or 'b' lets start from the ground and build as we are able.The words 'baptism' and 'baptize' are in themselves compromises. They are not English words at all but transliterations of Greek words. The Greek noun is baptisma. Strongs Concordance defines it as 'baptism'; that's really helpful guys! ;-) The Greek verb is baptizO. Bible words seldom have bible definitions; what they do have is histories. Often these histories have entered into the psyche of a nation. Here is a little list of place names; Alamo, Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Katyn. For an American, a Brit, an ANZAC, a Pole, these are not just place names, they are histories and the histories have defined the word.What does God expect us to understand or feel when the words baptise and baptism are used? Well let's trace the histories. The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms1. The FloodPeter tells us that the word baptism has a 'type'. A type is a template; it is something defines a shape. In Romans Paul says Adam was a 'type' of Him who was to come. There is something about the 'shape' of Adam which is repeated in the accomplishments of Christ. It is not the reality but the shape; 'the print of the nails' that Judas wanted to explore is the word 'type'. He would see the shape in the wound. The scriptures also refer to 'shadows'; For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. (Heb 10:1 ASV) Types and shadows have the same characteristics; they give the outward shape of the thing, but they are not the things itself. They have no colour, no texture, no details, no life. But even so they can be useful as a starting point.who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah--an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:20-21 YLT) The antitype is the reality of which the type was just the outline. This long introduction is to say that according to Peter Noah's Flood was a 'type' of baptism. So although Noah's Flood was historical fact it was also a revelation of something that would come later. It was a picture of baptism.Please forget everything you ever knew about 'baptism' and let's start from scratch. If Noah's Flood was the only definition of 'baptism' what would we think about. If your church were to announce a service of Believer's Flood what would you think about? If your denomination says it believes in the Flood of the Holy Spirit would that open up some new lines of thought? Go on, test the idea. If I said tell me what Noah's Flood/Baptism was all about what would be the first thought that entered your head. I suggest the first thought would be 'judgement'. Noah's Flood/Baptism was a death sentence on sinners. The corruption of sin was brought to a standstill by God's action. The old world was buried in water. It also had another effect. Every drop of water had the effect of lifting Noah higher. So the judgement of God on sin actually separated Noah from the sin that God was judging. It brought a whole creation to an end and started again with a new family. I sometimes wonder if Noah took off the covers and said to Mrs Noah, 'old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new'? What can we learn then from the Bible' first baptism? Baptism is judgement on sin. Baptism is separation from sin. Baptism is the end of the old and the beginning of the new. Remember God is beginning to build a sense of what He means by baptism. Whenever He uses the word 'baptism' in the future we must remember that this is His first 'definition' of baptism....to be continued.

Hi SamOK we'll play school...A. Associated with "being filled with the Spirit" are three NT usages -1. Pauline usage -- "being filled with the Spirit" as an ongoing, continual process.2. Lukan usage #1 -- "full of the Spirit" as a state of being.3. Lukan usage #2 -- "filled with the Spirit" as a one-time crisis event.Excellent work. Spot on.:-DB. Concerning Jesus' baptism by John the Baptiser:1. Jesus' water baptism is an anointing by the Spirit (after the OT fashion?) to be distinguished from the believer's being baptised by the Holy Spirit.2. John pointed out that Jesus is the one who baptises the believers by the Holy Spirit.More attention to detail required here. :-( 1. Jesus was baptised in water by John prior to being 'anointed' by the Father with the Spirit. Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luk 3:21-22 ASV)I have not introduced the 'believer' yet. Don't get too far ahead. 'Believing' will need a definition too later.2. These prepositions are important. So far I have made reference to baptism IN the Spirit rather than 'by' the Spirit. We shall see later that the Agent of this baptism is Christ while the medium into which He baptizes is the Holy Spirit. (In the sense of instrumentality we could translate 'by the Spirit' in the sense that a man might by 'slain by the sword', but the focus is upon the agent; Jesus the Baptizer.)Class dismissed. :-D

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms2. The Crossing of the Red SeaWe are trying to discover what the word 'baptism' means by just using the scriptures.I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:1-4 ESV)Who would have guessed that the events of the Passover and the Crossing of the Red Sea were really a baptism? These prepositions are fascinating too. 'in' the cloud and 'in' the sea have the word 'en' meaning 'in' (or in an instrumental sense.. by) The medium 'in' which they were all baptised was 'the cloud and the sea'. It doesn't say who the Baptizer was, although it was plainly God Himself, but it does have this phrase 'into Moses'. This is the preposition 'eis' meaning 'into' or 'towards'. This preposition is frequently used in the sense of destination and shows the destination of this baptism. The purpose of this baptism is to put the people 'into Moses'.This is a wonderful facet of truth that we would never have seen if Paul had not used this amazing phrase of being 'baptised into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.' Let's see if we can do a similar exercise to the one on Noah's Baptism. If we were to ask questions about the Crossing of the Red Sea, what would our answers be? What are the main truths captured in this story?In fact, there are surprising similarities to Noah's Baptism. This was God's final judgement upon the Egyptians; this was a death sentence on the sinners. The destructive power of the Egyptians was brought to a standstill by this event. Their old master was brought to death in the cloud and the sea. The cloud first separated Israel from the Egyptians and then the closing waters of the Red Sea sealed their fate. The baptism that ended the destructive power sealed their borders and left Israel on one side and their past on the other. So the judgement of God on sin actually separated Israel from the sin that God was judging. It brought a whole creation to an end and started again with a new family. I sometimes wonder if Moses paused on the other side of the water and said, 'old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new'? (I cut and pasted that from the last study!)There is something else about this baptism that we could have mentioned in Noah's Baptism; this baptism united the destiny of a people with the destiny of the Covenant holder. Let me explain. If we had studied the story of Noah we would have discovered that God's covenant was with him personally, and others benefited as a result of their right relationship with Noah. They were united with Noah as a result of Noah's Baptism. Now a similar thing is seen in the story of Moses' Baptism; the people are identified with and united to Moses. Their destinies have become inseparable. This baptism has joined them to Moses. So we are beginning to see a pattern in these hidden baptisms.1. Judgement on Sin/Our Enemy2. Separation from Sin/Our Enemy3. A decisive end of the old.4. A solid beginning of the new.5. A union with the the Covenant Holder.Do we dare to begin to ask the question 'if this is what the word "baptism" means, how does this fit in to a definition of 'baptism in the Spirit'? The word 'baptism' can't signify one thing consistently in the types and another in the reality. Hold the question, we have two more hidden OT baptisms to consider.ps I did some teaching on Noah some time ago. If you would like to hear this topic preached click here....to be continued.

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms3. Naaman's BaptismAs with many words used in the New Testament the word 'baptism' was not new. The Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek somewhere around 250BC (the Greek LXX (Septuagint c 260 BC) was the bible used by the early Christians, and when NT quotations differ from their OT original it is usually because the quotations are from the LXX. This doesn't mean that the Greek LXX is to be preferred to the Hebrew behind our bibles. It means that in the times quoted there is truth visible in the Greek LXX which was not obvious in the Hebrew) For the Jews of the 1st century AD Greek was their everyday language, particularly in the area of Galilee where most of Jesus' disciples had their homes. These men knew the LXX better than the Hebrew text, and Greek OT used the word 'baptize' on at least three occasions.The first instance was in a vivid story. The ASV translating from the Hebrew text has; Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. (2Ki 5:14 ASV) But the disciples had grown up with a text which, in the Greek said;2 Kings 5:14 So Naiman went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the word of Elisaie: and his flesh returned to him as the flesh of a little child, and he was cleansed. (LXX Eng Trans) where the word 'dipped' is 'ἐβαπτίσατο' - baptized.Perhaps this is a good time to say more about the Greek words to explain what they mean. There are several associated words:baptO means to dip, and sometimes 'to wash by dipping'baptizO means to submerge, and which should not be confused with baptO.The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989). (the cooks will see immediately the distinction is between 'blanching' and 'marinading'.)Naaman, then, marinaded/submerged himself seven times. Seven in the scripture is a number which often indicates perfection, thoroughness or completion. There could be no doubt about Naaman's 'baptism'. I think we can safely presume that the miracle took place not gradually but instantly as Naaman emerged from his seventh submerging. The consequence was that the battle scars and leprous scars of this gnarled old warrior were instantly gone and his his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.. Remember that the ideas associated with baptism are perculating down into the nation's memory of what is involved in baptism. Naaman became 'new and clean'. Naaman's personal history recorded in his scars was gone, completely.We can see some ideas here which link with the earlier 'hidden baptisms'. This marked the end of the old and the beginning of the new. It is linked this time not with judgement but with cleansing. If we continue our speculation we might imagine Naaman saying 'old things have passed away, all things have become new.' This is the first Bible 'baptism' where the candidate got wet!! Noah and family and Moses and the Israelites were kept completely dry during their baptisms. There is something else that this baptism effected. Naaman became an adherant of Jehovah. He was a changed man in more ways than his skin. This 'flesh as a little child' effect may have had future impact upon Jewish baptism as we shall see later. This links baptism with conversion and 'new birth'.This is slow work and I hope you don't mind that, but it will be important to understand what the word 'baptism' means before we try to understand what 'baptism in the Spirit' means.

Perhaps the best book written on this subject, including a study of the OT instances of Spirit baptism is Roger Stronstad's "The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke." It's a short book that is pretty easy to read (especially considering it was a Masters thesis).

Hi JimmyI don't know the book but I am not talking about 'Spirit Baptism' yet. At this stage I am trying to establish some basic ideas and I want to find 'the value of the word baptism' before we put it into any New Testament equations.This is a little like algebra. When we have established what the word 'baptism' would have meant to those who used it and heard it we may find some surprizes. I don't want to reverse-engineer by starting with pentecostal/charismatic theology and working backwards; I want to build upwards, slowly.

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms4. Isaiah's BaptismAnother portion of scripture which has 'bapizO' in the Septuagint is in Isaiah; Therefore are my loins filled with anguish; pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail: I am pained so that I cannot hear; I am dismayed so that I cannot see. My heart fluttereth, horror hath affrighted me; the twilight that I desired hath been turned into trembling unto me. (Isa 21:3-4 ASV) For the word 'affrighted' the Septuagint has καὶ ἡ ἀνομία με βαπτίζει horror baptized me The Greek word 'baptizO' is the word that classical authors used to describe a ship lost at sea; the ship was 'baptized' or overwhelmed. Irretrievably sunk. This is sense in which the LXX uses the word, but this passage is a terrifying passage of scripture. It is found in the section of Isaiah where God's judgements are coming upon the nations. All of these visions are terrifying but Isaiah singles this one out for a special introduction; A grievous vision is declared unto me; the treacherous man dealeth treacherously, and the destroyer destroyeth. Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media; all the sighing thereof have I made to cease. (Isa 21:2 ASV) It is a grievous vision. In this vision he sees the judgements of God coming on Babylon. As a prophet he identifies with his prophecy and experiences, in the Spirit, the sense of the judgement upon Babylon. He uses the language of childbirth, and later refers to this judgement as; O thou my threshing, and the grain of my floor! that which I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you. (Isa 21:10 ASV) (We shall come back to the picture of the threshing floor later in these studies)Experiencing the final judgement of God upon Babylon and its sin, Isaiah says 'he was baptized in horror'. He was utterly overwhelmed by the sense of God's righteous judgement upon sin, but even in the midst of this there is glimmer of hope represented in the picture of the travail that will bring forth.Can we see any of our familiar traits in this use of 'baptize'? Well, it is God's destructive visitation of judgement upon sin, and the judgement will ultimately result in the freeing of Babylon's slave peoples. It is a separating experience that will leave people on either side of a divide. It is also one of the OT's most vivid pictures of Gethsemene and Calvary, but that will need to wait for a while in our studies.The template for the idea of 'baptisim' is remarkably consistent. It is a destructive act of God which separates men from their slave-masters. Are we beginning to get an idea of what 'baptism' signified to Bible reading 1st century Jews?

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms5. Ezekiel's BaptismAs far as I am aware this is the last OT reference to the idea of baptism. Again it is in the Septuagint, the early church's KJV, that the word is used. This time it is in Ezekiel; Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity: (Eze 23:15 KJV) I expect you are looking at the verse and wondering where the word 'baptism' could be hidden here. Well, it's not the word 'baptizO' but that word 'baptO' signifying to dip and it is the word translated 'dyed'. Do you remember Lydia, the woman who dyed for a living? ;-) (Just a little reward for those who have plowed through this intense word study!!) Our Greek New Testament has this word too; And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:13 KJV) That word 'dipped' could be translated 'dyed'. When ancient people dyed a cloth in their purple dyes, they 'dipped' the cloth in and it became 'united with' what it had been dipped into. The words they used were 'baptO' and 'baptizO'. This is why the New Testament speaks of 'the baptism' in this way; Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (Rom 6:4-5 NASB) 'baptism' unites the thing immersed into the medium into which it was baptised. The two become inseparably one. Once you had two items cloth and purplse dye, but now you have one item; purple- cloth.There is no picture of judgement here, but the introduction of an idea that a baptism can effect a union. It is an irreversible event which leaves old things passed away and everything become new, or at least, purple!This brings our little count of hidden OT baptisms to 5.1. Noah's Baptism2. Moses' Baptism3. Naaman's Baptism4. Isaiah's Baptism5. Ezekiel's Baptism.Next we touch on converts to Judaism and their baptism.