Drunken Mystic

What I have shared briefly leads me to the following conclusions:

1. The baptism of the Spirit is not necessary for salvation. People without the baptism of the Spirit were still considered “disciples” and “believers.” This is an important distinction. Upon repentance, believers are given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, making us brothers with Jesus and giving us the grace to live righteous lives. The baptism of the Spirit is not required for this.

2. The baptism of the Spirit is a separate experience, most notably for greater ministry. The evidence seems clear to me. There was the “baptism of John”, which was the baptism of water symbolic of repentance and belief. The baptism of the Spirit was always a separate experience. And as we look at the symbol and shadow of the Levitical priest, being anointed was a necessary step before being allowed to go further into the ministry of the tabernacle/temple.

3. The baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by signs and wonders. Whether it be the speaking of different languages, prophesying or even the shaking of a building, no one was ever baptized by the Spirit without their knowledge. They may have not known what to call it, but the experience was real and extreme.

4. There is no formula. Some were baptized in the Spirit weeks after their belief, some years, some simultaneously at repentance, some were baptized in the Spirit even before being dunked in water. Sometimes it was done with the laying on of hands, sometimes not. It wasn’t followed as cut and dry as many today seem to desire. Some spoke in tongues, others did not, and in other cases it doesn’t even say exactly what happened. To try to follow some type of formula with this would be unwise.

5. The experience isn’t the goal. The apostles and ministers of the early Church were not pushing the baptism of the Spirit because they were attempting to give people goosebumps. They firmly believed that it would help the individual believer in their personal walk, greatly empower the gifts given by Christ to encourage the local community of believers, and increase the spread of the gospel. The experience, while valid, was secondary.

And so we come to a couple questions that many of you may be asking. I’ll attempt to address some of it here.

What about water baptism? The question can easily be raised, if the baptism of the Spirit seems to be a focus of the ministry in Acts, what is the purpose of water baptism? Peter and Hebrews clearly states that baptism, as it was handed down from Jewish cleansing ritual, has no power in and of itself. The early Church obviously observed some form of baptism to signify the of the new believer to his old life and his resurrection to a new community of faith. The disciples were familiar with the ministry of John, and knowing the story of Christ’s baptism, were somewhat loyal to the cause.

But Jesus never baptized anyone himself. Why is that? He allowed it during his earthly ministry, but I would have to suppose that he regarded his baptism of Spirit-fire as more important, or at least reserved for him alone.

So to be consistent with scripture, baptism was a common observance within the early Church, and they saw it as still part of their ministry. So those that feel strongly about water baptism have some support from the New Testament, obviously, even apart from the baptism of the Spirit.

What do I do now? The question could be raised, assuming that you believe what I’m saying, or at least are open to the baptism of the Spirit, and have never had the experience. Maybe you also greatly desire it. I would suggest a few things.

First, talk to God about it. Don’t just believe what I say, look up the scriptures. Pray to God about it. Let him know your desire for an anointing that will increase your ability to fight the enemy and give you more authority in the gift and calling from God. Meditate on it. Lift it up in prayer. Fast a couple days for it. Again, you are not seeking this out for the sake of the experience. This will empower you for greater ministry, but you also need to seriously consider that with this greater power comes greater responsibility and sharing in the burdens of God. This is no small thing to be taken lightly. It is a blessing, to be sure, but seek it out before the Lord soberly. The baptism of the Spirit changed Peter’s personality, as it is expressed in scripture. God will call you to greater things, which will undoubtedly call you away from worldly things. Count the cost.

Second, talk to someone you trust about it, someone who has shown with their testimony that they know what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is and can give you some feedback. Do this carefully, however, because you should always go about talking with brothers or sisters with what I could call a “spirit-filter”, checking to make sure that what they are saying lines up with the voice of God.

Third, ask someone who is obviously filled with the Spirit to lay hands on you and pray for you. Be vulnerable and ask for it in a gathering of saints. This is not a formula, but if God leads in this way, could be very powerful.

As in all things, love one another. It is not my motivation to make anyone feel pressured into doing anything. But I also feel like it is love to describe something that Jesus, Peter, and Paul felt was important enough to make an issue with different people at different points. If you disagree with me, please know my heart is to love and encourage the Body of Christ to be a greater testimony of the power of God, not to divide in any way.

Peace.

In Acts 6, being “full of the Spirit” was one of the standards for new leaders. How did they recognize someone full of the Spirit? By some sort of fruit, as is taught in the rest of the New Testament. Stephen went on to do great signs and wonders.

Once the apostles come across a group of Samaritan believers, they have been “baptized in Jesus” but not the Spirit. What does that mean? There was obviously a distinction between water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit. They proceeded to lay hands on these people and imparted the Holy Spirit to them (Acts 8).

In Acts 9, Saul is converted and still needs to be “filled with the Spirit.”

Peter goes to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10, to speak to the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit falls, people speak in tongues, THEN they are baptized in water once it is clear to Peter that God had ordained the Gentiles. As Peter defends his speaking to the Gentiles (a major issue at the time), he remembers that there would be two separate baptisms, one of water and one of Spirit-fire (Acts 11).

In Acts 18, Apollos makes his entrance, and he is speaking of Christ and arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. But the Bible makes it clear that he only knew the “baptism of John.” And then the way had to be more clearly explained to him. What was the baptism of John? Water baptism symbolizing repentance. Its not clear in this case, but definitely implies that the ministers at the time felt he needed more than the baptism of John.

In Acts 19, Paul comes across some disciples in Ephesus who had only the “baptism of John.” He lays hands on them and baptizes them in the Holy Spirit. They proceed to speak in tongues and prophesy … all of them (about twelve, I think it says).

Despite some teaching out there, the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur once at Pentecost. Why did it need to continue happening? I heard one intelligent teacher suggest that different nation groups needed to be baptized to be included in the Church. First of all, that doesn’t square with the scripture. Once Gentiles, Samaritans, and Jews were baptized, why did the group in Ephesus need it? Second, if it were true, then wouldn’t every new group we preach the gospel to need the baptism of the Spirit?

At some point, the early Church clearly made a distinction between the baptism of John (water baptism at the decision of repentance) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as two separate events. And of course they would. Most, if not all, of the early disciples would have been baptized under John or one another during Jesus’ ministry. Then they were given the Holy Spirit after the resurrection but still needed to wait for the anointing as a separate event. This is what they taught and lived.

Tomorrow I will conclude all this with some practical points to help us pull it all together.

Peace.

As we finished up yesterday, I noted that John the Baptist, as the last in the line of the Old Testament type of prophets, prphesied something very important: “I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with Spirit-fire.”

In other words, there was a different baptism coming through Christ. And while John was baptizing for repentance, what would this different baptism be for?

Christ exemplifies it when he goes, out of obedience, to be baptized by John. Let’s look at a couple things about Christ as we peruse the event more closely. Why did Jesus need the baptism of repentance?

He didn’t. Christ was to be both High Priest, the King, and Prophet, the Messiah prophesied through Isaiah, Jeremiah, and almost every Old Testament prophet, including some interesting passages from Nehemiah. John’s father was a priest, from the priest class, so the baptism of Jesus was instead the passing on of the Levitical priesthood to Jesus, through John, at the baptism. (A nod to Saji for that piece of revelation)

But like the priests of the Old Covenant, Christ was also born with the nature of God, perfect. Why then did he need the anointing of the Holy Spirit?

Because he was being anointed for ministry. The torch, the fire, so to speak, was to be passed from the Levites through John unto Jesus. And in order to minister, Jesus was blessed by the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

(Some might quickly say, didn’t Israel have a high priest? They also had a king, Herod, but we know Herod wasn’t the anointed choice. Neither was the current High Priest. It is God who ordains and chooses, and of course God chose John through a miraculous birth, to be the last of the Old Covenant priest and prophet.)

Not to mention that, while they happened at once, they were two separate events. Jesus is dunked in water and then the Holy Spirit rests upon him. And this leads us to the second reason Christ needed to be “baptized in the Spirit”, as an example for us, as the firstborn of many brethren. Many times through the New Testament, we are told that we should look to Christ as an example (”let this mind be in you,” etc). If Jesus needed to have the anointing of the Holy Spirit before his ministry, don’t we?

Important to remember, Jesus never baptized anyone in water. His disciples did, during his ministry, for repentance, but he never did. He knew he had a better baptism to pass on.

Moving on, Jesus gives the apostles the Holy Spirit after his resurrection, at the end of the Gospel of John. There were no tongues, no flames of fire, no preaching directly afterwards. This was a separate event from what happened on Pentecost.

At the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts (really the same long book if you put them together), we get the reason why they were to wait for the Holy Spirit, so they could be empowered unto the ministry God had prepared for them.

The day of Pentecost was a different experience, obviously. Jesus wasn’t there in the flesh. People spoke in different languages, Peter boldly preached. There was a second experience that anointed them for what happens throughout their ministries.

And before I get to Acts tomorrow, let me quickly note a couple things. Don’t ignore that while they waited for the Holy Spirit, they waited together, in love, in community, in one accord. They were in one accord before being anointed and sent. God is waiting for the Church today to do the same.

The second note is to notice the difference between the Peter of Luke (and the other Gospels) and the Peter of Acts. He is a different man. In the Gospels Peter looks like many Christians today, passionate but misguided, overzealous at the wrong times, prone to fear man and his own safety, denying His Lord. The Peter in Acts is a man of authority, stability, and boldness. He is markedly different after the anointing of the Holy Spirit on his life.

No wonder they made it an issue throughout the rest of Acts.

Peace.

Everything important in the New Testament and the New Covenant has a type and a shadow in the Old. God is the same yesterday, today, and always. He wasn’t some different God then than now. And we can see some symbols of the two separate baptisms in the Old Testament.

First of all, we have the two crossings by the nation of Israel. First they crossed the Red Sea on dry land, then they crossed the Jordan with Joshua. They are both important in the journey, but symbolize something very different.

The crossing of the Red Sea was miraculous, but it symbolized the repentance of a people pressing on away from Egypt and into a new life with God, and it occured under the direction of Moses, who while symbolic of Christ, is symbolic of Christ in the Law, which is why it has to do with repentance.

The second baptism was with Joshua (Jesus’ actual name, Yeshua). One of the reasons Moses would never have led the nation of Israel into the promised land was because Moses was symbolic of the Old Covenant. As Paul discusses in Hebrews, the Old Covenant could never truly fulfill the promise, and so it took Joshua (Jesus) to take them into the Promised Land. The second baptism was also over the Jordan, and we can assume with some confidence this was the exact place where Jesus was baptized by John (more on that tomorrow). The baptism over the Jordan was also done by the presence of God housed in the Ark of the Covenant, symbolic of a greater baptism.

And the baptism of the Jordan was necessary not for repentance but to fulfill the promise, to go and fight for the land and drive out the current inhabitants.

Secondly, the priests themselves had to go through a type of second baptism. Priests were born priests (only Levites and even certain families within them were allowed to minister to the Lord), so they were already ordained by physical right. But in order to carry out the ministry they were born to do, they had to be anointed by oil. You’ll see more the connection tomorrow.

The tabernacle was built in the wilderness, and the sacrifice was prepared. Remember, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and repentance is our sacrifice through the of Christ. But the first sacrifice was not burnt by the priests but by God Himself, consumed with fire from heaven.

And last, but not least, we have Elijah before the priests of Baal. He pours water over the sacrifice three times (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), but it is God who must validate the sacrifice with fire from heaven. Two baptisms.

So as we finish up the time of the prophets, John the Baptist makes his declaration about Christ, “I baptize with water, but He will baptize with Spirit and with fire.” That could also be translated “Spirit-fire.”

We’ll see how Christ was the fulfillment of that tomorrow.

Peace.

This topic has come up recently and I wanted to put a little teaching up here on the blog for those interested in pursuing this more.

As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised in a very conservative, evangelical fellowship, so the baptism of the Holy Spirit wasn’t ever really discussed unless we were making fun of those pesky Charismatics or Pentecostals. I got older and knew some of these brothers on my own and went to their meetings, and what I saw never really convinced me that there was more to it than I had previously believed. In fact, most of the charismatic meetings I attended only confirmed my convictions.

Time went on, and I would say that the division between the two groups, charismatic and evangelical, discouraged me more than any other since it hinged on something like speaking in tongues for both groups. It was honestly one of the major reasons for backing out of fellowship altogether for a while.

Then I met Larry Trammell, where a lot of things changed for me, mostly because I found someone I could relate to who didn’t make minor things major things. He cared most whether or not I loved God and worshipped Him and loved others. He was truly non-denominational, unlike most who attempt that moniker, even though some things that happend in those meetings at his home would be considered charismatic (although I’ve learned that much of the freedom he taught even stretches that group in its own way).

Over the course of the years before I met Larry Trammell, I was prayed over at various times to be “filled with the Spirit.” I was an open minded young guy, and I was ready for whatever, but nothing ever really happened. It wasn’t until one Tuesday night at the Trammells that someone laid hands on me, prophesied and something really happened. I didn’t speak in tongues, but the feeling was unmistakable. Something happened. Something was different. My reaction was yelling out in joy a few times, if you’re curious at all.

So as I get into this, I know that there are those who are strictly against anything to do with this teaching. I understand. I was once there, too. No judgment on my part. Just skip the rest of the series. There are others who know intimately what I’ll be teaching on and have their own experiences. Leave a little story or something in the comments if you feel so led.

There are others that are possibly just curious and open to whatever God really has, regardless of how they were raised or taught before. Read what I say checking on the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit inside you already. You’ll be led correctly, I have no doubt.

Before I get into it, let me say that I know this has the potential to be controversial to some, and I am so thankful that I am a part of fellowships that have not made this an issue or doctrine to be “in” or “out.” Those with more conservative evangelical pasts and those with more charismatic pasts have just loved one another and received the gifts from each other that are already there without judment. Just as Larry Trammell blessed me fourteen years ago, you would have done the same if a frustrated young man with long hair had graced your door.

Peace.