Talk:Baptism with the Holy Spirit/Archive 1

''Archive of discussions for 2003 through August 2011. Note: discussions may be refactored.''

Untitled
Copied from User talk:DJ Clayworth: We'll have to work together on this "Baptism in the Holy Spirit", if you dont mind. The thing is, all denominations accept that the holy spirit is received at the moment of salvation. What they differ on is on the endowment of power for life and service. Pentecostal/Full Gospel/Charismatic say that this endowment is given on a second experience, titled the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Some inside pentecostal circles see the glossolalia as a confirmation, some not. But thats it. User:Nbarr 18:39, 6 November 2003


 * Hi Nbarr. Sorry if I was unclear, but my edits were not intended to disagree with what you said at all. The only thing I wanted to do was to be explicit that all Christians agree about the Holy Spirit being received at conversion (or baptism) and to add that some outside the Pentecostal church would agree that Baptism in the HS is subsequent; although they would disagree as to whether glossolalia was always given. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thats ok. I made some minor changes, please see if you think they are correct. My problem is that english is not my mother language, and I may be failing to describe the term in proper ways. Do you feel it is ok right now, and that it reflects the things I said above? Nbarr 19:00, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree fine. However I would go further than you went. Pretty much all churches, including Catholic, would agree that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion, or baptism or possibly confirmation. I remember the Bishop praying for me to receive the Holy Spirit at my confirmation, in a church that was a long way from being Evangelical. DJ Clayworth 19:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * We seem to have Baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as this. Unless I've missed a subtle point of theology these are the same thing, and we need to merge them. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * These have now been merged. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" was marginally more popular in Google, so I put the article at that rather than "Baptism in the Holy Spirit". Angela. 01:11, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
I think this page currently misrepresents the Pentecostal and Charismatic views, and the differences between them (check the relevant articles). Both Pentecostals and Charismatics believe (by definition) that the "charismatic gifts" of the Spirit are still active today, but, according to the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals also believe that everyone who is baptized in the Holy Spirit must speak in tongues. Charismatics, by definition, believe that baptism in the Holy Spirit is separate from salvation. Some believers are both, some are only one or the other. Currently, the page looks to me like it claims that both pentecostals and charismatics believe that someone who has not been baptized in the Holy Spirit is not saved. This would only be true of someone who was Pentecostal but not Charismatic as, e.g., the Pentecostal Church of God, which does, consequently, hold that a person is not saved unless he speaks in tongues. --kpearce 07:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In my church (and the churches I have attended) we see Baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidence of being born-again. But I don't necessarily believe you must speak in Tongues to be saved/born-again. In any case, we believe a person inhabited by the Holy Spirit is saved, and I'm not sure, but some believe that you must be inhabited with the Spirit to be saved (I am one), but speaking in Tongues or Interpreting them is not a requirement, merely evidence. Эйрон Кинни  02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to have a correct appreciation of Spirit blessings, we must look to the life of Jesus where he was baptised with water by John the Baptist and then the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove. There was another experience though, even more powerful than the baptism of the Spirit. It happened at the mount of transfiguration where God said "This is my Son, with Him I am well pleased" This is experience is the equivalent of another experience talked about in the scriptures which is the mystery that has been hidden for generations which is "Christ in you, the surety of glory" This experience is talked about in revelation and described as "To him who overcomes" The baptism in the Spirit is for new believers. The purpose is to give power to be a witness of Christ Acts 1:8 The evidence of the baptism is power in the Spirit of God for the believers walk with Christ. [Unsigned comment by User:202.156.6.54 19:05, 1 March 2006]


 * Perhaps 'Holy Spirit baptism' would cover both 'in' and 'of'. Some would draw distinctions between these useages. Secondly, the main difference between those who argue that the Holy Spirit baptism is a subsequent experience to conversion is whether the associated gifts of the Spirit were for all christians generally or just for the initial apostles during the establishment of the early church. The term Pentecostal principally refers to those who believe that Holy Spirit baptism is a repeat of the first Pentecost experience where speaking in tongues was an obvious sign to those observing the phenomenon. As tongues was mentioned in the majority (but not all) of subsequent biblical examples the 'initial evidence' theology was developed. One biblical example suggests the HS Baptism was experienced before a full understanding of the Gospel message.


 * Most Pentecostals would agree that Baptism of or in the Holy Spirit would ideally take place simultaneously with conversion (although Holiness Pentecostals would always seperate the two to allow a period of sanctification following conversion). The fact that it often does not ( for a variety of reasons) led to Christians who attended non pentecotal / charismatic churches after experiencing the Baptism, having to decide whether to stay in that church or leave and form organisations that recognise or at least accept the second experience. It is a concern that individuals have felt either under pressure to conform either to established ways or to new experiences as some kind of measure of orthodoxy or acceptability. People are unique individuals and if accepting a personal God with a character then wouldn't there be some variety and personalisation of the experience given to fit the receivers circumstances and needs?  In order to ensure all points of view are covered it should be noted that those who claim to use gifts such as tongues etc are seen by some to be at least immature, misguided or worse. Johnmarkh 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Article title
Why is the page title "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" -- almost all versions of the Bible refer to it as "Baptism with the Holy Spirit". It is an important distinction, as the Bible describes that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, not that the Holy Spirit does the baptizing. [Unsigned comment by User:156.56.138.128 02:10, 13 July 2005]

Needs expanding?
There probably needs to be more explanation of how the term has been used through Christian history, rather than simply by Pentecostals. When I have time, I will also try to add more charismatic interpretations - Henry Lederle's book Treasures Old and New is an excellent resource on this. David L Rattigan 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits 15 May
Just reversed the following edits because they were POV:
 * But, the spoken of actually refers to judgment. The baptism of "spirit" refers to new life and the baptism of "fire" refers to judgment for unbelievers. So, no one born again will have a batism of fire. The baptism of water in that verse simply refers to John's baptism. John's baptism of repentance, but it is not Christian baptism as occurs after Christ's death burial and resurrection. If the later baptism of water at conversion and baptism of the spirit were separate, then that would mean baptism saves and you could fulfill God's will with or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which scripturally is actually conversion, being born again.

Have saved it here for the record in case anyone (including the original editor) wants to do anything with it or use it for a future NPOV edit. David L Rattigan 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1 Cor 12:13
John R W Stott in his book Baptism and Fullness attempted a different approach. Using 1 Cor 12:13 as the starting point, he built his Theology upon the foundation that ALL Christians are Baptised in the Holy Spirit. Not, as it were, some have it - some don't.

I read this over twenty years ago, and at the time, it was like a light bulb going on in my head. I have never forgotten it. I recall this every time I see this issue resurface.

I can absolutely guarantee that by firmly and persistently applying this teaching one will develop a Theology enriching and satisfying. Hope this helps. Added on 23:34, May 15, 2006 by Brother Lee Love


 * Thanks for the contribution - it serves to show that there are differing approaches to the subject that should probably be mentioned. Most pentecostals would hold that all those born again have the Holy Spirit within in them but that Baptist in/of/with Holy Spirit is a subsequent experience possibly with the emphasis on the Holy Spirit coming 'upon them'. rgds, ||:) johnmark†  21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate
This article only talks about the Pentecostal interpretation of the Baptism With The Holy Spirit. It needs to be expanded to talk about all of the theological interpretations of this subject. [Unsigned comment by User:137.240.136.81 02:46, 25 May 2006]


 * I have expanded this article to separate out viewpoints from the Catholic, Reformed and Wesleyan perspectives as well. [Unsigned comment by User:Bzehr 01:27, 14 June 2006]

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition removed - POV, no citation - Original research?
The reader should note that the Apostle Paul expressly provided the Church with an explanation of the purpose of "speaking in tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14:22. In that verse the Apostle stated that tongues were to serve as a sign to unbelievers whereas prophecy was for the believers. Indeed, in each case in the New Testament where tongues were exhibited there was, in some expressed form or manner, the presence of unbelief or as some might put it, doubt. Also, the Apostle stated plainly that not all Christians share the same gifts, viz a viz, tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:30.

I have removed the above paragraph as it expresses an intrepretation of scripture and appears to be original research. Whilst this may be a valid POV it does not provide citations and simply asserts a difference from the previous paragraph johnmark†  18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotations
I removed the biblical quotations (after first thinking of cleaning them into bullet points like the current ones) because the section is copied directly from a website which was added to the links section at the same time. Que (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ha you don't konw that [Unsigned comment by User:86.130.95.193 12:08, 5 December 2009]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a secondary experience
There are those in the Fundamentalist Camp that believe that the belief of a secondary experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit automatically makes one a Charismatic or a Pentecostal. This was never the teaching of Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, or R.A. Torrey, strong Fundamentalists of the 1800's. D.L. Moody and R.A. Torrey's viewpoints are strongly presented in R.A. Torrey's books, Baptism with the Holy Spirit, (1895), and What the Bible Teaches, (1898). The classic book, "What the Bible Teaches," can be found online at www.whatthebibleteaches.com, go down to 270. Baptism With the Holy Spirit, click that, and you will find a very strong Scriptural presentation on The Baptism With the Holy Spirit being a secondary, additional, and important work in the believer, and that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, (Power), are evidences of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures that could have been presented better in the article are the Scriptures found in John 20. The Lord Jesus Christ says to the saved disciples, after His resurrection, (a necesity of salvation per Romans 10:9), in vs. 22 "Receive the Holy Spirit..." and Believing Thomas in vs. 28 proclaiming, (...My Lord and my God), demonstrates that the disciples were saved before the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The Disciples of John 20 had and impartation of the Holy Spirit based on vs. 22, though they don't have the Baptism with the Holy Spirit until Acts 2. This is all explained in R.A. Torrey's book above.

R.A. Torrey's presentation is that when one is Baptized in the Holy Spirit a Gift of the Holy Spirit found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 will be available to them. The idea that Speaking in Tongues as being the primary evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit did not come into being in Chrisiantity until the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Most Pentecostals believe that the primary evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is "Speaking in Tongues," also called "The prayer language of the Spriit - 1 Corinthians 14). Also, Charismatics and Pentecostals, (for the most part), believe that the prayer language of the Spirit may be different than the Gift of Tongues for the service as described in the latter half of 1 Corinthians 14.  Also, most Pentecostals DO NOT believe that one must be Baptized with the Holy Spirit in order to be saved, rather that it is a secondary experience subsequent, additional, and one that every believer should know whether they have or not, (see R.A. Torrey above).

In my Great-Grandfather's book, Fruit From the Jungle by M.D. Wood - see http://books.google.com/books?id=68AEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=fruit+from+the+jungle+wood&source=bl&ots=G2yFdFLffv&sig=rqvnPKVguJwhkndC8rvAckJawJM&hl=en&ei=0UP5S4WmNZHMM9GL5YMI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, he describe on pg. 8 hearing D.L. Moody preaching about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a secondary experience and inviting the boys at his school to receive the secondary experience of power for their ministry. Just history here folks - my grandma is the cute little kid on pg. 11, she moved to her older sister's home in La Crescenta during the mid-20's and was the Secretary of the youth group of Angeles Temple, best friends with Roberta Semple, the President of the youth group. The great-grandmother, to the right, was related to the Matlacks, and the brother of Timothy Matlack the engraver of The Constitution of the United States. The Matlacks disinherited my great-grandmother when she decided to give her life to Jesus Christ and go to the mission field in India with my great-grandfather. She was a Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-wrote Pentecostal/charismatic section
The previous version of this section was horrible. It was cluttered, confusing, and unsourced. I have rewritten with sources from Pentecostal theologians and scholars. My strength is Pentecostalism so I have left the charismatic viewpoints to someone else more knowledgeable. I think the introduction needs a ton of work. I may be seeking input from other editors on how to fix this aritcle up. Ltwin (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Difference between "filled with the Holy Spirit", be "given the Holy Spirit as gift" and "baptism with the Holy Spirit"?
In which christian traditions is "baptism with the Holy Spirit" considered as separate from "be given the Holy Spirit as gift".

Does "be given the Holy Spirit as gift" happen at the instant of salvation, baptism in water or baptism with the Holy Spirit? Can someone explain the expression "filled with Holy Spirit"? Is it considered synonymous to be given the whole spirit as gift, to beeing "baptized with the Holy Spirit", or something that every christian can experience several times in lift - also before the baptism with the holy spirit.

Are fruits of the Holy Spirit something that can be expected from any christian, or only from a person that is baptized with the Holy Spirit?

I think the article should clarify the view of different christian tradition on these issues.

Mange01 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right this article needs to do a better job. I can only tell you what I know from the Pentecostal perspective.


 * First, I don't know of anything in Christian theology called "baptism from the Holy Spirit", so I think you are referring here to "baptism with the Holy Spirit". This is just my opinion and to the best of my knowledge it lines of with Pentecostal beliefs on the subject. Pentecostals believe that when you are saved you are "born of the Spirit". After you are born of the Spirit, Pentecostals believe that you can be filled with the Spirit. Pentecostals commonly refer to this as baptism with the Holy Spirit. There is not just one experience of being filled, but the Bible encourages believers to be constantly filled with the Spirit. I think Pentecostals would say that anyone "born of the Spirit" or a Christian if their conversion was real will bear fruit, irrespective of whether they have been filled or not. On spiritual gifts I would say that usually (because God is sovereign) spiritual gifts would operate after a person has been filled with the Holy Spirit. A good way to undersand what being "filled" means is to think of a cup being filled to overflowing with wine. When we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the love Christ is literally overflowing out of us. Ideally, we should freely give this love of Jesus away, when we are emptied again then he fills us once more. Ltwin (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanx for explaining pedagogically. Sorry about my poor english language. Regarding the expression "receive the holy spirit as gift": According to Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" So all christians are promised this gift immediatley after (never before?) baptism in water? Is it the pentecostal view that not all christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but all receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at the instant when they are baptized in water? Or how can you otherwize explain the text? Is salvation without Holy Spririt possible? Would such a christian person be "spiritually dead" or? Mange01 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok first let me get the easiest questions out of the way.


 * Just in case you don't know, baptism with the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as water baptism. Pentecostals practice water baptism as an outward sign of an inward change, but it is not the same thing as being baptized with the Spirit.


 * You ask "Is salvation without Holy Spririt possible?" The Bible says that it is only by the power of the Spirit that we are saved. Therefore, if you are saved, you have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of you. That does not mean that you have been filled (or "baptized") in the Spirit. I think that is what you have to understand when talking about Pentecostals understanding on this subject. Salvation = the Spirit living on the inside of you. Salvation does not = Spirit baptism.


 * "Would such a christian person be 'spiritually dead' or?" No, a Christian who has not recieved the baptism with the Holy Spirit is spiritually alive. They are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and they are alive in Christ. A Spirit baptized Christian is not "more spiritual" than a Christian who has has not been Spirit baptized.


 * "Regarding the expression "receive the holy spirit as gift": According to Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" So all christians are promised this gift immediatley after (never before?) baptism in water? Is it the pentecostal view that not all christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but all receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at the instant when they are baptized in water? Or how can you otherwize explain the text?"


 * The "gift of the Holy Spirit" is the same as baptism with the Holy Spirit. Notice it says we are to repent, then be water baptized (in other words become fully committed and initiated Christians), and then we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The "gift of the Holy Spirit" is not the Holy Spirit himself, we received that the moment we repented and Jesus became our Lord and Savior. Galatians 4:4-6 says: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Notice that the Spirit is sent into our hearts because we are already sons. How does a Christian (a son) get the gift of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit baptism)? Luke 11:9-13 says: "And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"


 * According to Pentecostals, we ask in faith for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. So the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a separate event from both salvation and from water baptism. Pentecostals cite Acts 8: 14-17 to show a biblical example of a group of people being converted and being water baptized, and yet not being Spirit baptized. It was only after Peter and John came to them and gave them instruction and laid hands on them that the "Spirit fell".


 * I hope this explains what Pentecostals believe in an understandable way. Ltwin (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have time, perhaps you can copy some of your explanations into the article?


 * I'm sorry about all my questions. You explain well, but I still don't get the full picture.


 * When you say "Spirit dwelling inside you" or "Spririt living on the inside of you", are those expressions from the Bible? Do you know some argument for that this is not the same thing as "been given the spirit as gift", except perhaps one single bible verse?


 * Is it correct to say that pentecostals - as part of the holiness movement - consider born-again christians as more "good" than non-christians, in the sense that born-again christians get help from the above to do loving acts, "show fruit" and resist temptation? And that Lutherans and Catholics focus more on the sinful nature of humans, and on the importance of asking God for forgiveness every day, also after the salvation?


 * I also have not understood the difference between baptism in Johns' and Jesus' names? I though it had to do with the Holy Spirit somehow. And what's the difference between a christian that is and is not filled with the holy spirit, if the first one is not "more spiritual"? Perhaps you have another definition of "spiritual" than me?


 * I heard a reporter saying that ones upon a time, pentecostals beleived that all that were baptized with the holy spirit could talk in tongoues, while today some pentecostals see other signs of baptism in holy spirit. Is that correct? What signs could that be? Any "spiritual gift"?


 * So many christians - also pentecostals - do not consider themselves as baptized with the Holy Spirit, after years of prayer. How can you combine that fact with the promise that all christians will be given the holy spritit as gift, if you define that as the same thing as being baptized in the Holy Spirit. (I have pentecostal background myself but it did not work. Today I'm agnostic, and I beleive some persons due to psychological reasons are more tallented in speaking in tongues. Just like some have a natural gift for music or language skills or to mimic behaviour.) Mange01 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a theologian. I'm not sure if those phrases are exactly in the Bible. However, logically, if, as in the Bible it is, it is possible to be "born again", be baptized with water, but still not have the baptism with the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit would still have to in some way or sense be with the born again but not yet Spirit baptized believer because the Bible clearly says that no one can say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. So if you reject the Pentecostal explanation, what you have is a contradiction of Scripture, which, if Scripture is the Word of God and God does not lie, is impossible.


 * Your assumption that Pentecostals have a Wesleyan-holiness movement background is incorrect. That may have been true when Pentecostalism began, but early in its history, there was the Finished Work controversy. From that time on, the majority of Pentecostals are non-Wesleyan and understand sanctification to be a life-long process, not an event. Pentecostals, and all other Christians as far as I know, will readily tell you that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". We are all sinners, both Christian and non-Christian. On the subject of Pentecostal relations with other denominations and Christian traditions, Pentecostals recognize all who "confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that he has risen". Of course that doesn't mean that they will agree with other Christians on all points of doctrine and practice but the only qualification in Pentecostal theology of being "born again" is to "confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that he has risen", anyone who has done that is a Christian. In the past, there was tension between Pentecostals and the Catholic Church, but in recent years, especially after the rise of the Catholic Charismatic movement, the relationship between the two groups has improved. A sign is this are the official dialogues that have been going on for decades between Catholic and classical Pentecostal theologians. I'm not sure what this means: "And that Lutherans and Catholics focus more on the sinful nature of humans, and on the importance of asking God for forgiveness every day, also after the salvation?" Pentecostals believe that you must repent of sins, and I think most serious Pentecostals would ask for forgiveness of sins at least once a day. The difference between Catholics and Pentecostals (as far as I know and I may be wrong) is that Catholics beleive that the priest is a mediator between them and Christ, while Pentecostals believe that there is no mediator between the Christian and God. Therefore they would not feel the need to confess their sins to a priest, but they would feel the need to confess their sins to God.


 * John's purpose was to "prepare the way of the Lord". John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. "And what's the difference between a christian that is and is not filled with the holy spirit, if the first one is not 'more spiritual'?" There is no difference. The same Spirit lives in the Christian who has been Spirit baptized and the one who has not; it is just that the one who is not Spirit baptized is living below their privelege. It is a gift that is freely offered and freely received. The purpose of Spirit baptism is to give the believer an enduement of power for witness and service. The disciples were told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem until they had received power. It was only until they had received power that they carried out Jesus' commission.


 * "I heard a reporter saying that ones upon a time, pentecostals beleived that all that were baptized with the holy spirit could talk in tongoues, while today some pentecostals see other signs of baptism in holy spirit. Is that correct? What signs could that be? Any 'spiritual gift'?" Officially, all Pentecostal denominations believe that the "initial evidence" of Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues. There are Christians who believe that baptism with the Holy Spirit is a definite event after salvation, but they do not believe that one necessarily will speak in tongues. These are called charismatic Christians. Many probably would accept any spiritual gift as evidence of baptism.


 * "How can you combine that fact with the promise that all christians will be given the holy spritit as gift, if you define that as the same thing as being baptized in the Holy Spirit." Because in the Bible there were born again believers who had not yet received the baptism with the Holy Spirit. "I beleive some persons due to psychological reasons are more tallented in speaking in tongues. Just like some have a natural gift for music or language skills or to mimic behaviour." Just so you know, there have been studies conducted on people while they spoke in tongues. Brain scans showed that the parts of the brain normally associated with language and speach were not active. So whether you believe its of God or some other explanations, the brain has nothing to do with it. Ltwin (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Should the page be named "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" or "Baptism of the Holy Spirit"? Seems that "with" -is the role of God or a pastor/believer for another, and "of" -is the act to the believer/receiver. Ant thoughts on the minor grammatical issue? --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "With" is much more common than "of" according to Google hit rate. But "in" is just as common. In various bible versions, "with" seams to be more common than "in", but I have not seen "of". "By" also occurs in one translation. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4-6&version=NLT . Mange01 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote article
I have been "bold" and rewritten this article. Much of the previous version was unsourced or poorly sourced (such as the large use of Scripture references). I think it clearly and fairly lays out the Pentecostal/charismatic views on this subject. What is needed is reliably sourced information on what non-Pentecostal/charismatic Christians generally believe about Spirit baptism. I know many believe it occurs when one becomes a Christian, but the article needs to do a better job of explaining that. Ltwin (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A clean-up might be a good idea. You reduced the article from 21 784 characters to 9 291 characters! However, it is very important to avoid deleting sourced text - or state good reasons for each source that is deleted. I restored some deleted but sourced text.


 * The "original" version before the cleanup can be found here. Still the following sources in the original version are missing in the current version: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 34, 35, 36 and 37.


 * I also restored the division of the article into different religious traditions or views. I think it is a good structure to start out from, making it possible to write a balanced article. A short article is not a major goal. Featured articles are normally quite long, and have many sources and often some illustrations. Mange01 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wesleyan section is completely unsourced—that's why it was removed, and it was not that well written to began with. The Catholic section was shortened and is mentioned in the lead. The rest was either poorly sourced or it reflected a Catholic Charismatic perspective which was already covered in the Pentecosta/charismatic section. The section "Development of the term" was using Scripture references as sources or it used an article written by a Pentecostal to support a Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism as if this was the only view. This section really added no understanding to "development of the term". If a section is titled "Development of the term", as a reader I expect to find out the history of how the term "Holy Spirit" developed. I did not find that in this section. Again the section "Baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues" used only Scripture references and sources which discussed whether all Pentecostals consider speaking in tongues the initial evidence. Initial evidence is not up for debate here, and speaking in tongues has its own article as does Pentecostalism where these issues can be discussed. In any event, initial evidence is mentioned in the "Pentecostal/charismatic" section as something Pentecostals disagree on.


 * There were scholarly sources removed from the article (if you look at the edit summaries you will find that I added many of the ones that I removed). These were removed because what they were essentially saying remained in the article but in condensed form. For example, source 7 was a block quote. What this quote is saying is essentially kept in the first paragraph of the Pentecostal/charismatic section.


 * More information is great, but just because something has been in the article doesn't mean it can't be deleted, especially if it is redundant or unsourced. That's not an excuse for keeping the article unorganized and confusing and of poor quality. I didn't remove the Wesleyan and Catholic sections because I'm trying to keep other views out. I removed them because of source issues and content. This article needed a massive reorganization. I hope other traditions will be placed here—but I hope they are sourced and informative. I have no regrets removing the last two sections. They were a mess. Happy editing. Ltwin (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional" View?
This article seems to define "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" in primarily Pentecostal terms, that is in individual terms. If there are no objections, I will update to reflect a more universal understanding, attempting to be respectful and fair where there are disagreements. Chadbald (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you placed your comment at the top instead of at the bottom (which is standard procedure on talk pages) I was not aware that you had proposed these changes earlier. Thanks for contributing because while I am familiar with the Pentecostal view I am less familiar with the traditional view. I have no problem with most of what you've added though I did remove the sentence on "two class" Christianity, not because I don't think it is a credible criticism of the Pentecostal/charismatic position but because I didn't think that mentioning it without both sides presented was NPOV. Other than that I think your editions have been fair.
 * I do have questions about the Catholic position however. I am aware that throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages, even in modern times, the Catholic Church has had a strong belief in miracles, especially in connection with saints. The article now seems to say that Catholicism shares a cessationist view. How does this go with the obvious continuation of the belief in miracles? (I'm not asking about Catholic views on Spirit baptism but on the continuation or ceasing of the gifts) Ltwin (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving me to the right place. Somehow I thought these pages were supposed to move up instead of down (like a blog maybe?); thanks for setting me straight.  I'm not sure I agree about your NPOV characterization.  First, both "sides" are presented on the page.  Second, the sentence was under the heading "Historical view," and is for that purpose accurate.  Third, I'm not sure there are actually "sides" on this particular point.  Both Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals (if such a hard distinction can be made) are in perfect agreement on this point; in fact, this point defines the controversy and is stated as such at other places on the page.  So it's not actually criticism of the Pentecostal view, but a description of it: The traditional view is that the whole Church has been baptized with the Holy Spirit, and the Pentecostal view is that some members of the Church have been and some have not been.  Perhaps the use of the word "class" makes it sound like a criticism to you?  I mean the word "class" in its technical sense, not in its colloquial sense (i.e. "high class," "low class), as in "Linnaean taxonomy identifies nine classes of vertabrates, but phylogenetic taxonomy identifies twenty-three."  This doesn't represent a value judgment of either kind of taxonomy, but only describes a difference between them.  I'd be in favor of returning some version of that sentence as I think it helps to crystallize the difference, though I understand if folks feel that "class" carries a pejorative connotation--as if Pentecostals are "classist"!


 * Your question about the Roman Catholic views is an interesting one. I think you'll find that "cessationism" ultimately doesn't have a lot to do with views on Baptism with the Holy Spirit, though among Protestants, the battle lines do coincide.  The fact is that Roman Catholics (perhaps together with the Eastern Orthodox) are the ONLY full continuationists in the world.  RCs believe that the same gift given to the Apostles continues today in the Papacy and the Magisterium; this is the foundation of Papal Infallibility ("...by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority," Vatican I) and the authority of the Church Canons.  ALL Protestants, by definition, agree that this gift "ceased" with the completion of the canon of Scripture.  Believing that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is given to all believers doesn't make RCs cessationist.  The first Protestant articulations of modern cessationism were actually written primarily against Rome, not against Pentecostals (see Counterfeit Miracles by B.B. Warfield).  Those arguments were applied to Pentecostals and Charismatics later.


 * The Second Wave Charismatic Movement, remember, was the embrace of the Charismatic experience among traditional denominations, including RCs, EOs, and many Protestant churches. This did not represent a change in their theology of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, but only in their theology of how gifts of the Spirit are expressed.  So its perfectly possible (and probably increasingly common) to be a traditionalist regarding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and a continuationist regarding the gifts.  A quick glance at the Cessationism/Continuationism cluster of articles leads me to suspect those articles could use some tweaking this direction.  The fact of the matter is that all Protestants are at least a little bit cessationist (Sola Scriptura), and all Christians are at least a little bit continuationist (the Holy Spirit continues to give gifts to the Church).


 * Thanks for cleaning up after me and removing redundancies I created. The article looks much better now. 209.6.95.224 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Oops, that was me. Chadbald (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining about Roman Catholicism and for writing the Eastern Orthodox section. Ok about the "class" issue. I don't have a problem with the sentence being put back in if it is rephrased. You may or may not know but that is a common criticism about Pentecostalism that it creates a two class Christianity:the haves and the have nots. This is what set my POV meter off lol. In reality (most) Pentecostal churches treat everyone the same and no one is looked down on because they haven't been Spirit baptized. Pentecostal churches tend to attract attendees from many denominational backgrounds and they don't put a lot of stress on making someone Pentecostal. I know that many denominations (such as the Assemblies of God USA) require that ordained pastors be Spirit baptized with the evidence of speaking in tongues but they recognize clergy from non-Pentecostal denominations as well.
 * Ok sorry for the rant. I really do appreciate your contributions. When I came here the article was a mess and so I started working on it from the Pentecostal perspective because that's what I'm familiar with. Glad to finally have some more voices here. Ltwin (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted text
The following text has been deleted from the article. Some of these issues are now mentioned under "Charismatic view" and "Historical development" instead. I think the old headlines gave the article a clear structure, allthough the text had its issues. (Besides, the article has improved lately. Keep up the good work User:Ltwin and others!) Mange01 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this has been included here. The "Wesleyan view" section is completely unsourced. I suppose it can possibly be of use to any future endeavors at creating a new sourced section. That still doesn't explain why you included the "Catholic charismatic view" in this section designated for material "deleted from the article" because it hasn't been. It is conveniently located in the section entitled "Pentecostal and charismatic" 4th paragraph. Ltwin (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Currently, the article's opening sentence reads "Baptism with the Holy Spirit (or Baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a term used by Jesus Christ in the Christian Scriptures to describe the coming of the Holy Spirit ." The last part of this sentence, to me, seems overly simplistic. I'm sure most theologians if they had to describe this theological concept in one sentence would not say that it was simply "the coming of the Holy Spirit." This implies that it only occurred on Pentecost, which of course is ludicrous no matter what your position is. I'm sure its possible for us to find a better description that all Christians can agree to.

Because "baptism" literally means to immerse or to dip and since it is Jesus who baptizes with the Spirit, perhaps something like this could do "... the act whereby Jesus immerses the church and individual believer in the Holy Spirit." Then the sentence would read: "Baptism with the Holy Spirit (or Baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a term used by Jesus Christ in the Christian Scriptures to describe the act whereby Jesus immerses the church and individual believer in the Holy Spirit." I'm not saying this has to be the way it is written, but I just want to start the discussion. Ltwin (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to simplify somewhat in the lead. I think your proposed wording assumes certain truths in a way that a non-Christian editor might reasonably find objectionable. If anything, I'd suggest that the primary definition in the opening sentence should discuss what the phrase means in contemporary Christian practice, rather than its biblical origin. Thparkth (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure how my version assumes anything any differently than the current version does. Both state that the term is recorded in the Christian Scriptures and states that, in those scriptures, Jesus uses the term to describe a certain divine action. The difference is that the current version simply says the term "describe[s] the coming of the Holy Spirit." This implies that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was a single event and that it is not something that is ongoing in the life of the church. This is not accurate.


 * The reason my wording and the current wording of the first sentence have focused on the biblical origin of the word is that that is the one area where most Christians can agree on. Every other tradition brings its own emphases and ideas into it. I don't want the opening to favor either a Pentecostal or a non-Pentecostal point of view, and I think that the current version does that. How do you think that we can focus on "what the phrase means in contemporary Christian practice?"


 * Are you objecting to the phrase "is a term used by Jesus Christ?" We can take that out: "Baptism with the Holy Spirit (or Baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a term used in the Christian Scriptures to describe the act whereby Jesus immerses the church and individual believer in the Holy Spirit." Ltwin (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with "a term used by Jesus Christ" since this is obviously verifiable. But you are into the realm of interpretation when you say that Jesus was referring to something that would happen to "the church" or to abstract individuals in the future rather than to the specific people he was addressing. Thparkth (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then maybe we should take out the scripture reference and say in Christian theology instead. Ltwin (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the opening sentence. Hopefully this new version takes into account what was discussed here and can be acceptable by most editors. Ltwin (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism in this article
I do not understand how Mormonism is represented on this page. This is a Christianity related article. Mormons are simply not orthodox Christians. The fact that Mormonism has an area on this page infers that Mormonism is related to Christianity, which it is not. The section should be removed. Boywonder2 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do we think we should put it? The article is named "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" and Mormons believe in such a thing called "Baptism with the Holy Spirit". They also believe in a God-man named Jesus Christ, and they consider themselves the true Christians. Despite what you or I think, there is no reason to remove the section from this page. This is not a popularity contest, if the majority of Christians in the world decided that Baptists were not Christians the fact is it wouldn't change what Baptists themselves believed. Ltwin (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)