Conservative to progressive....

[Soloist]

every single Amish and Mennonite person has already experienced baptism of the Holy Spirit

The Bible makes it clear every baptised person (legitimately repents and is baptised, obviously) receives the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Words you use have meaning or it’s empty babble. The response is to your words “every single”

[Josh]

every single Amish and Mennonite person has already experienced baptism of the Holy Spirit

The Bible makes it clear every baptised person (legitimately repents and is baptised, obviously) receives the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Words you use have meaning or it’s empty babble. The response is to your words “every single”

Every single Amish and Mennonite member has been baptised. By definition they are born again (born “of water”), received the Holy Ghost, and had remission of their sins.

Perhaps some are illegitimate but I don’t think we should get busy questioning whether other people are sincerely born again or decided to get baptised under false pretenses? Anyway, perhaps I should have said “every baptised Amish and Mennonite person”.

This is in response to Valerie’s accusation that almost no Amish or Mennonite people are “baptised in the Spirit”.

[Soloist]

every single Amish and Mennonite person has already experienced baptism of the Holy Spirit

The Bible makes it clear every baptised person (legitimately repents and is baptised, obviously) receives the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Words you use have meaning or it’s empty babble. The response is to your words “every single”

Every single Amish and Mennonite member has been baptised. By definition they are born again (born “of water”), received the Holy Ghost, and had remission of their sins.

Perhaps some are illegitimate but I don’t think we should get busy questioning whether other people are sincerely born again or decided to get baptised under false pretenses? Anyway, perhaps I should have said “every baptised Amish and Mennonite person”.

This is in response to Valerie’s accusation that almost no Amish or Mennonite people are “baptised in the Spirit”.

Josh, scripture does not say that.

Act 8:13  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Act 8:14  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17  Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The two events were separated here.
The apostles also did not receive the Holy Spirit when baptized.
Perhaps by Valerie’s definition very few have been baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps by your definition all over them have. Scripture however does not support your position that baptism in water results in baptism by the Spirit.

[Josh]

Acts 2:38 makes it very clear those who are baptised receive the Holy Ghost.

As far as “baptism of the spirit” being some unique thing, the NT doesn’t really portray it clearly in the way Wesleyan Holiness people claim it does (and subsequently Pentecostals). Christians including Anabaptists were unified on this doctrine until the Wesleyans came along and I tend to reject such theological “innovations”.

Particularly when it’s used to promote such utter claptrap as claiming Mennonites and Amish are not “baptised in the Spirit”. And in any case, according to Pentecostals I am (since I can speak in tongues)… which means you all have to listen to me

[Soloist]

Acts 2:38 makes it very clear those who are baptised receive the Holy Ghost.

What is your response to what happened then?

Edit: neither of us disagreed that the Holy Spirit was given, you were arguing pretty strongly though that everyone who is baptized receive the Holy Spirit. When I showed you a situation where it was delayed, could not the same be true in our modern day?
(there’s my rhetorical question for the day)

[ohio jones]

… which means you all have to listen to me

Πρέπει να ακούμε μόνο όταν μιλάς σε γλώσσες και κάποιος ερμηνεύει.

[Sudsy]

Perhaps the beliefs regarding 'being filled with' and 'being baptised in' and 'receiving' the Holy Spirit is worth discussion in a new thread ? Some early Anabaptists were involved in charasmatic manifestations including speaking in tongues dating back in the mid 1500's A.D. and then in the 1900's. My background emphasized the on-going need to be filled with the Spirit for boldness to proclaim the Gospel and to live a supernatural Christian life. But they also believed one receives the Spirit when they are born again.

Well, got to go. Wife is calling.

[Josh]

Acts 2:38 makes it very clear those who are baptised receive the Holy Ghost.

What is your response to what happened then?

Edit: neither of us disagreed that the Holy Spirit was given, you were arguing pretty strongly though that everyone who is baptized receive the Holy Spirit. When I showed you a situation where it was delayed, could not the same be true in our modern day?

I think it’s best to stick to the simple reading of Acts 2:38.

Growing up in Pentecostal circles, one believes the rather absurd notion that the rest of Christendom somehow lacks the Holy Spirit. I think this is a very false notion and one worth categorically speaking against.

[Soloist]

I think it’s best to stick to the simple reading of Acts 2:38.

Growing up in Pentecostal circles, one believes the rather absurd notion that the rest of Christendom somehow lacks the Holy Spirit. I think this is a very false notion and one worth categorically speaking against.

You do that. I’ll stick to both passages rather then only the one.

[Josh]

I think it’s best to stick to the simple reading of Acts 2:38.

Growing up in Pentecostal circles, one believes the rather absurd notion that the rest of Christendom somehow lacks the Holy Spirit. I think this is a very false notion and one worth categorically speaking against.

You do that. I’ll stick to both passages rather then only the one.

The other rather major assumption is that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of being filled with the Spirit. The NT does not directly ever say this.