BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT AND SPEAKING IN TONGUES.
A. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament , instituted by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of being grafted on it. Rom. 6: 3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27.
B. From the remission of sins: Mr. 1: 4; Acts. 22:16.
C. And his dedication to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life: Ro. 6: 4.
A. Those who actually profess repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to him are the right ones to receive this ordinance: Mt. 3: 1-12; Mark 1: 4-6; Lk. 3: 3-6; Mt. 28: 19,20;Mark 16: 15,16; June 4. 1.2; 1 Corinthians 1: 13-17; Acts. 2: 37-41; 8: 12,13,36-38; 9:18; 10: 47.48;11:16; 15: 9; 16: 14,15,31-34; 18: 8; 19: 3-5; 22:16; Ro. 6: 3.4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21;Jer. 31: 31-34; Phil. 3: 3; June 1. 12.13; Mt. 21:43.
A. The outer member to be used in this ordinance is water, which must be baptized: Mt. 3:11; Acts. 8: 36.38; 22:16.
B. The person in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: Mt. 28: 18-20.
C. The immersion of the person in the water is necessary for the proper administration of this ordinance: 2 Kings 5:14; Ps 69: 2; Is . 21: 4; Mark 1: 5,8-9; 3:23 June.; Acts. 8:38; Ro. 6: 4; Col. 2:12; Mark 7: 3,4;10: 38,39; Lk. 12:50; 1 Corinthians 10: 1-2; Mt. 3:11; Acts. 1: 5.8; 2: 1 to 4.17.
Baptism is the sacramental sign of the New Covenant. It is the symbol God uses to seal his word chosen ones that are included in the covenant of grace.
Baptism means several things. In the first instance, it is a sign of cleansing and remission of sins. It also means that we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, buried and raised with Christ, the Holy Spirit has come to dwell within us, which have been adopted by the family of God and we have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Baptism was instituted by Christ and should be administered in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The outward sign does not automatically or through magic conveys the realities that means.For example, although baptism signifies regeneration, or the new birth, not automatically transmits this new birth. The power of baptism is not in water but in the power of God.
The reality that this sacrament points may be present before or after the sign of baptism has been given.In the Old Testament the sign of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was, among other things, a sign of faith. In the case of adults, as was the case of Abraham, faith was prior to the sign of circumcision.With the children of believers, however, the sign of circumcision was given before his possession of faith, as was the case of Isaac. Similarly, in the New Covenant, the Reformation theology requires adult converts are to be baptized after making his profession of faith, while their children are baptized before professing faith.
Baptism means the washing with water. The command to baptize can be performed by dipping, spraying or ablution. The Greek word baptize includes any of these three possibilities.
The validity of baptism does not depend on the character of the minister who administers or character of the person who receives it. Baptism is a sign of God's promise to save all who believe in Christ. As it is a promise of God, the validity of this promise depends on the true character of God.
As baptism is the sign of God's promise it should not be administered to a person more than once. It is baptized more than once is to put a shadow of doubt on the integrity and sincerity of God's promise. No doubt that those who have been baptized twice or more are not intended to question the integrity of God, but their action, if we understand correctly , communicate such doubt. It is the duty of every Christian, however, be baptized. This is not a ritual without any content, but a sacrament instituted by our Lord.
1. Baptism is the sacramental sign of the New Covenant.
2. Baptism has multiple meanings.
3. Baptism was instituted by Christ and should be administered with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
4. Baptism does not automatically transmits the new birth.
5. Baptism may be administered by dipping, spraying or ablution.
6. The validity of baptism depends on the integrity of God's promise and should be administered to a person only once.
BIBLICAL PASSAGES FOR REFLECTION
Romans 4: 11-12, Romans 6: 3-4, 1 Corinthians 12: 12-14, Colossians 2: 11-15, Titus 3: 3-7.
BIBLICAL EXPLANATION AND BASE
In this chapter and the next try of baptism and the Lord's Supper, two ceremonies that Jesus ordered his church realized. But before you start considering these ceremonies should note that there is disagreement between Protestants even on the general term that should be applied to them. Because the Roman Catholic Church calls these two ceremonies "sacraments", and because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that these sacraments themselves actually give grace to people (without requiring faith of the people involved in it) some Protestants (especially Baptists) have refused to refer to baptism and the Lord's Supper as "sacraments".
They have preferred to use the word rather ordinances. It is thought to be an appropriate term because baptism and the Lord's Supper were "ordered" by Christ. 1 On the other hand, other Protestants, such as the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed traditions, have been willing to use the word "sacraments" to refer to baptism and the Lord's Supper, without endorsing the Roman Catholic position.
It does not seem to be any significant point at stake in the question of whether to call the baptism and the Lord's Supper "ordinances" or "sacraments". Since Protestants who use both words clearly explain what they mean by them, the argument is actually not in doctrine but as to the meaning of the word in Spanish.
If we are willing to clearly explain what we mean, there seems to be some difference if we use the word sacraments or not. In this text, when referring to baptism and the Lord's Supper in the Protestant teaching, I will use both interchangeably "ordinances" as "sacraments", and consider synonymous in meaning.
Before beginning our consideration of baptism we must recognize that there has been historically, and today there is a strong difference of view among evangelical Christians on this issue. The position advocated in this book is that baptism is not a "principal" doctrine should be the basis for division between genuine Christians, 'but with all matters of importance to the ordinary life of the church, and it is appropriate that give full consideration.
The position advocated in this chapter is "bautística; that is, that baptism is properly administered only to those who give a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ. During consideration particularly intersperse consideration of the position of paedobaptism "infant baptism") as advocates Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology since this is a careful and representation also responsible for paedobaptist position, and is a text of systematic theology widely used.
The practice of baptism in the New Testament was done in only one way: the person who was baptized was completely submerged or placed under water and then taken out again. Baptism by immersion is therefore the "mode" of baptism or how baptism was done in the New Testament. This is evident by the following reasons:
(1) The Greek word baptizo means " to sink, submerge, immerse" something in water. This is the meaning commonly recognized and regulate the term in ancient Greek literature both inside and outside the Bible "
(2) The meaning of 'immerse' is probably appropriate and required for the word in several passages of the New Testament. In Mark 1: 5, John baptized people "in the Jordan River" (the Greek text is in, "in", and not (next to "or" off "or" near "the river) 'Marcos also He tells us that when Jesus was baptized "Then up out of the water" (Mark 1: 10).
The Greek text specifies that came "out of" (ek) water; and not to be away from her (this is expressed by g. It apo). The fact that John and Jesus down the river and out of it strongly suggests immersion, since spraying or pouring water could have done much more easily standing by the river, particularly because of the crowds of people who came for baptism .
John's Gospel also tells us that John the Baptist "also John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water" Gn 3: 23).
Again, do not require "much water" to baptize people by spraying, but much water would be needed to baptize by immersion.
When Philip told him about the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, "As they traveled along the road they came to a place where there was water, and the eunuch said: 'Look you, here is water. What prevents me from being baptized "(Acts 8: 36)?. Obviously none of them thought sprinkle or pour some water in a container of drinking water that had taken place in the carriage was sufficient to constitute a baptism.Rather, they waited until there was a body of water near the road.
Then "he commanded the chariot, and they both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
When they came up from the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip.
The eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing "(Acts 8: 38-39). As in the case of Jesus, the baptism took place when Philip and the eunuch went down into a body of water, and after baptism rose from that body of water. Again, baptism by immersion is the only satisfactory explanation for this story:
(3) The symbolism of union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection seems to require baptism by immersion. Paul says:
You do not Know You that all who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death To? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him in his death, so that as Christ was raised by the power of the Father, we too may live a new life (Romans 6: 3-4).
Similarly, Paul tells the Colossians: "You received it by being buried with him in baptism. In it they were also raised through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead "(Col 2: 12).
Now this truth clearly is symbolized in baptism by immersion.
When the candidate for baptism is submerged in water that is a box down to the grave and burial.Surfacing is then a box be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. Baptism thus clearly illustrates the death of the old ones life and resurrection to a new kind of life in Christ, but baptism by sprinkling or pouring simply does not have this symbolism?
Sometimes it is objected that what is essential is symbolized in baptism is not death and resurrection with Christ but purification and cleansing of sins.
The revealed in several places in the New Testament pattern is that only those who give a credible profession of faith should be baptized. To this notion is often called the "baptism of believers", since holding that only those who believe in Christ (or, more precisely, those that have reasonable evidence to believe in Christ) should be baptized. This is because baptism is a symbol of the Christian life start should be administered only to those who have indeed begun the Christian life.
Examples of narratives of those who were baptized suggest that baptism was administered only to those who gave a credible profession of faith. After Peter's sermon at Pentecost we read (two who accepted his message were baptized) (Acts 2:41).
The text specifies that baptism was administered to those who "received your message" and therefore trusted Christ for salvation.
Similarly, when Philip preached the gospel in Samaria, we read:
"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized" (HH. 8: 12). Similarly, when Peter preached to the Gentiles in the house Camelia allowed baptism for those who had heard the word and received the Holy Spirit; ie those who had given persuasive evidence of an internal work of regeneration.
While Peter preached: "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message" and Peter and his companions' heard them speaking in tongues and praising God "(Acts 10: 44-46). Peter's answer was that baptism is appropriate for those who had received the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit: "Can anyone deny water to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Then Peter " he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ "(Acts 10: 47-48).
The point of these three passages is that baptism is properly administered only to those who have received the gospel and trusted in Christ for salvation. There are other texts also indicate this: Acts 16: 14-15 (Lydia and her family, after "the Lord opened her heart" to believe "); Acts 16: 32-33 (the family of the Philippian jailer, after Peter preached "the word of God to him and all the others who were in his house");and 1 Corinthians 1: 16 (the family of Stephanus), but these passages are considered more fully below when we see the issue of "baptism of families".
In addition to these indications of the narratives of the New Testament that baptism always came after saving faith, there is a second consideration that advocates the baptism of believers: the outward symbol to start the Christian life should be given only to those who show evidence of having begun the Christian life.
The New Testament authors wrote as if clearly give for granted that all who were baptized had also personally committed to Christ and
8Berkhofadvierte against giving too much importance to the silence of the Scriptures concerning baptism of infants. Commenting on the fact that in some cases whole families were baptized, she says, "and if there were infants, is morally true that they were baptized with their parents'
But this is not what Acts 2:41 says: the passage specifies that (those who accepted his message were baptized), and not those who received his word but were infants who belonged to the families of those who received your message. Experienced salvation. For example, Paul says, "All you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3: 26-27).
Paul here assumes that baptism is an outward sign of internal regeneration. This simply would not have been true of infants; Paul could not have said, "all infants who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ", because infants have not yet come to saving faith or have no evidence of regeneration:
Paul speaks in the same way in Romans 6: 3-4: "Do not you know that all who were baptized into Christ Jesus actually went baptized into his death? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him in his death. " Could Paul have said that infants?
He could not have said that "all infants who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death" and "were buried therefore with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead"?
But if Paul could not say these things as infants, then those who advocate infant baptism must say that baptism means something different for infants that what Paul meant by "all those who were baptized unite with Jesus Christ". Those who advocate infant baptism at this point turn to what seems to this author vague language regarding infants being adopted "in the covenant" or "in the covenant community," but the New Testament does not speak of that way about baptism. Rather, it says that all who have been baptized have been buried with Christ, they have been raised with him and have put on Christ.
A similar argument can be made of Colossians 2: 12: "You received it by being buried with him in baptism. In it were also raised through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. " But you could not say the infants were buried with Christ, or who were raised with him through faith, since they do not have enough faith to exercise their own age.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism should be administered to infants. !! This is because the Roman Catholic Church believes that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that the act of baptism itself produces regeneration. Therefore, in this view, baptism is a means by which the church gives grace that saves people. And if this kind of channel saving grace should be given to everyone.
Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma 'Da The following explanations: Baptism is this sacrament in which Man Washing With Water In The Name Of The Three Divine Persons reborn Spiritually (Ott De Jn 3: 5; Tit 3: 5 And Eph. 5: 26 As support of this contention).
Baptism Provided that the provisions Appropriate (Faith and sorrow for sin) are present, Performs: A) The eradication of sin, both original sin and, in the case of adults, and also personal sins, mortal and venial), Sanctification internal by infusing Sanctifying Grace.
Even if it is received unworthily Valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient A Spiritual Indelible Mark, the baptismal character. Christened Person is incorporated, by the baptismal character within the Mystical Body of Christ. Any person validly baptized, even Dubbed outside the Catholic Church, becomes member of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Ott goes on to explain that baptism is necessary for salvation and must perform only the priests:
Water baptism is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
Ott says that while ordinary baptism given by a priest, in unusual circumstances (such as when a child is in danger of dying soon after birth) can be performed by a deacon or lay person. Even baptism by nonbelievers thought valid, because Ott says:
Thus, although a pagan or a heretic can baptize, provided it adheres to the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does.
Although infants can not exercise saving faith for themselves, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that infant baptism is valid:
Faith, since there is the Effective Cause Justification need not be present. Faith that infants lack is replaced by the faith of the Church.
Essential to understand the Roman Catholic notion of baptism is to realize that Roman Catholics hold that the sacraments operate apart from faith of those participating in the sacrament. If this is so, then it follows that baptism can confer grace even to infants who do not have the capacity to exercise faith.Several statements in the book of Ott indicate this clearly:
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments have an objective Effectiveness, ie, an independent Efficacy of subjective disposition of the recipient or the Minister Sacraments confer grace immediately, that is, without the mediation of the Faith Trust.
The sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace they signify, And grant Prevent those who do not.
The Sacraments operate ex opere operato. That is, the Sacraments operate by the power of Sacramental Rite Completed.
Formula "Ex opere operato" claims, Negatively, that grace is conferred by Sacramental No Reason Subjective activity of the recipient, and Positively, that grace is produced by Sacramental Sacramental Operated Signal valid.
However, Ott carefully explains that Roman Catholic teaching should not be interpreted "On The Mechanical Efficiency O Magic Sense." He says:
By contrast, in the case of adult receiving expressly it required Fe Notwithstanding the provision Subjective Del Receiving Not The Cause of grace; It is merely an Indispensable Precondition Communication Gracia. The De La Gracia Carried Ex opere operato Measure Even depends on how subjective disposition.
In answering this Roman Catholic teaching must remember that the Reformation revolved around this issue. The great concern of Martin Luther was teaching that salvation depends solely on faith, not faith plus works. But if baptism and the other sacraments participate is necessary for salvation because they are necessary for saving grace, then salvation really based on faith plus works.
In contrast to this, the clear message of the New Testament is justification by faith alone. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast "(Eph. 2: 8-9). Even more, (the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord "(Rom 6: 23).
The argument of the Roman Catholic Church that baptism is necessary for salvation is very similar to the argument of the opponents of Paul in Galaxia saying that circumcision was necessary for salvation.Response
Paul is that those who are preaching circumcision require (a different gospel) (Gal 1: 6). He says that "All who live by the works of the law are under a curse" (Gal 3: 10), and speaks very severely those who try to add any other form of obedience as a requirement for justification:
"Those of you who try to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; have fallen from grace "(Gal 5: 4). Therefore, we must conclude that no work is necessary for salvation; and therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation.
But what such as A John 3: 5: "I assure you that whoever is born of water and the Spirit, can not enter the kingdom of God"? Although some have understood this as a reference to baptism is best understood against the background of the new covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:
With the Pure Water I will roll, and be purified. I cleanse them from all impurities and idolatries. They give you a new heart and a new spirit them; They will remove the heart of stone they now have, and they'll put a heart of flesh. I put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and obey My Laws (Ez 36: 25-27).
Ezekiel here speaks of a "spiritual" cleansing to come in the days of the new covenant when God put His Spirit in His people. In light of this, born of water and the Spirit is a "spiritual" cleansing it happens when we are born again, and also received a (cause it to rain heart) spiritual, not physical, at that time.
Similarly, Titus 3: 5 specifies no water baptism, but "the washing of regeneration" explicitly indicating that it is a spiritual granting of new life. Water baptism is simply not mentioned in this passage.
A more literal spiritual before washing also mentioned in Ephesians 5: 26, where Paul says that Christ gave himself for the church "to make holy. He purified, washing with water through the word. " It is the word of God that makes washing mentioned here, not the physical water.
As for the Roman Catholic notion that baptism brings grace apart from the subjective disposition of the recipient or the minister (a position that is consistent with the baptism of infants, who do not exercise faith for themselves), we must recognize that there no New Testament example to prove this point of view, nor is there evidence of the New Testament that tells you to.
Rather, the stories and narratives of those who were baptized indicate who had first come to saving faith (see above). And when there is doctrinal statements on baptism also they indicate the need of saving faith.When Paul says, "You received it by being buried with him in baptism. In it they were also raised "immediately specifies" through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead "(Col 2: 12).
Finally, what about in terms of 1 Peter 3:21, where Peter says (baptism that now saves you also)? Does not this give clear backing to the Roman Catholic notion that baptism itself gives saving grace to the recipient).
No, because when Peter uses this phrase continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism saves them "not to cleansing the body" (ie, not as an external act, physical, washing dirt from the body, that is not the part that saves), "but in the commitment to a good conscience before God "(ie, as an internal, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, symbolized by the external transaction baptism ceremony).
We can paraphrase Peter's statement saying, "baptism now saves; no external physical baptism ceremony but the inner spiritual reality that baptism represents ". Thus, Pedro guard against any notion that baptism automatically saving power attributed to physical ceremony itself.
Peter's phrase, "the pledge of a good conscience before God" is another way of saying "a request for forgiveness of sins and a new heart." When God gives the sinner "a clean conscience", that person has the assurance that all sin is forgiven and is in right relationship with God (Heb 9: 14 and 10: 22 speaks this way in terms of cleanliness one's consciousness of Christ).
To be baptized is properly make such "appeal" to God; that is, say, in effect: "My God, when I entered this baptism that cleanses my body outside I'm asking you to clean my heart inside, forgive my sins, and put me in right relationship before you" . Understood this way, baptism is an appropriate symbol of the beginning of the Christian life.
So 1 Peter 3: 21 certainly does not teach that baptism automatically saves people or confer grace ex opere operato. Even he teaches that the act of baptism itself has power saving, but rather that salvation is through internal exercise of faith that baptism represents (Col 2: 12). In fact, Protestants who advocate the baptism of believers may well see in 1 Peter 3: 21 some support for his position: baptism, one could argue, it is properly administered to anyone who has enough personally to be "an aspiration God for a clear conscience. "
In conclusion, the Roman Catholic teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation, that the act of baptism itself confers saving grace, and that baptism is therefore properly administered to infants, are unpersuasive in light the teachings of the New Testament.
In contrast to both the Baptist position it advocated in the first part of this chapter, and the Roman Catholic notion that just considered another important notion is that all the children of believing parents baptism properly administered.
This is a common view in many Protestant groups (especially Lutheran churches, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Reformed). To this notion it is sometimes known as the argument paedobaptism pact. It is called an argument of "covenant" because it depends on considering children born to believers as part of the "covenant community" of the people of God.
The word "paedobaptism" means the practice of baptizing infants (the paidos prefix, meaning "child" and is derived from the Greek word country, "child").! 8 The arguments presented by Louis Berkhof, explaining be considered primarily clearly and defends well the paedobaptist position.
The argument that infants should be baptized believers depends primarily on the following three points:
In the Old Testament circumcision was the external input signal in the covenant community or community of God's people. Circumcision was given to every Israeli child (ie males) at eight days old.
In the New Testament the external input signal in the "covenant community" is baptism. Therefore, baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. It follows that baptism should be administered to all infants of believing parents. Denying that benefit is deprive them of a privilege and benefit rightfully theirs: the sign of belonging to the community of God's people, the "covenant community". The parallel between circumcision and baptism is clearly seen in Colossians 2:
In addition, In Him were circumcised, not by human hand but with the Circumcision Consisting putting off the sinful body. This Circumcision made Christ. You accept him being buried with him in baptism. In Him they were also raised through faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead (Col 2: 11-12).
Here we are told that Paul makes an explicit connection between circumcision and baptism.
Additional support for the practice of baptizing infants is in the "baptisms of families" that are reported in Acts and the Epistles, particularly baptism of the family of Lydia (Acts 16: 15), the family of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16: 33), and the family of Stephanus (1st Co 1:16). also they claim that Acts 2:39, which states that the promised blessings of the gospel are for "for you, for your children," supports this practice.
In response to these arguments for paedobaptism, should note the following points:
(1) It is certainly true that baptism and circumcision are similar in many ways, but we must not also forget that what they symbolize is different in some important ways. The old covenant was a physical and external means of entry into the "covenant community". One was becoming Jew born of Jewish parents. Therefore, all Jewish men were circumcised. Circumcision was not restricted to people who had true inner spiritual life, but rather gave it to "all who lived among the people of Israel. God said:
All male among you shall be circumcised. All males of each generation must be circumcised at eight days of age, both children born at home and those who have money are bought with a foreigner and, therefore, not Sean Kindred you. Without exception, both born at home and who has bought with your money, they must be circumcised (Genesis 17: 10-13).
It was not just the physical descendants of Israel circumcised, but also the servants they had bought and lived among them. The presence or absence of inner spiritual life made no difference at all in the matter of whether one was circumcised. So "that same day Abraham took his son Ishmael, all those born in his house, which had bought with his money and all the other men who were in his house, and circumcised them, as God had commanded "(Gn 17: 23; Jos 5: 4).
We must realize that circumcision was made to every man who lived among the people of Israel but the true circumcision is internal and spiritual, "Circumcision is that of the heart, which makes the Spirit, not by the written code" (Ro 2: 29). Moreover, Paul in the New Testament explicitly states that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Romans 9: 6).
But although there were in Old Testament times (and more fully in the New Testament time) an awareness of inner spiritual reality that uncircumcision was intended to represent, there was no effort to restrict circumcision only those whose heart really was circumcised spiritually and had genuine faith that saves. Even among adult males circumcision it applies to everyone, not only those who gave evidence of internal faith.
(2) But under the new covenant the situation is very different. The New Testament speaks of a "covenant community" consisting of believers and children, relatives and servants nonbelievers who is living among them. (In fact, in consideration of baptism, the phrase "covenant community" as the use paedobaptists often tends to function as a broad and vague term that blurs the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament in this issue) .
In the New Testament church the only question that matters is whether one has faith that saves and spiritually has been incorporated into the body of Christ, the true church. The only "covenant community" that is considered is the church that is the community of the redeemed.
But how do you become one member of the church? The means of entry into the church is voluntary, spiritual and internal. One becomes a member of the true church to be born again and have faith that saves, not by physical birth. This is not an outward act, but by the inner faith of one's heart. It is certainly true that baptism is the input signal to the church, but this means that you should only give to those who give evidence of membership in the church, only those who profess faith in Christ.
should not be surprised that there is a change in the way it entered the community of the covenant in the Old Testament (physical birth) and how it enters the church in the New Testament (spiritual birth).There are many similar changes between the old and the new covenant in other respects alike.
While the Israelites were fed the physical manna in the wilderness, the New Testament believers feed on Jesus Christ, the true bread which has come from heaven Gn 6: 48-51). The Israelites drank water that gushed physical rock in the desert, but those who believe in Christ drink the living water of eternal life He gives Gen. 4: 10-14).
The old covenant was a physical temple which Israel came to worship, but in the new covenant believers are built to be a spiritual temple (1st Peter 2: 5). The believers of the old covenant offered physical sacrifices of animals and crops on the altar, but the New Testament believers offer "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2: 5; Hebrews 13: 15-16).
The believers of the old covenant God received physical land of Israel promised, but the New Testament believers receive "a better country, that is, the heavenly" (Heb 11: 16). Similarly, in the old covenant that were physical descendants of Abraham they were members of the people of Israel, but in the New Testament which are the spiritual "seed" or descendants of Abraham by faith are members of the church (Gal 3 : 29; Romans 4: 11-12).
In all these contrasts we see the truth of Paul emphasizes the distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant. The elements and physical activities of the old covenant were "only a shadow of what was to come," but the true reality, the "substance", is in the relationship of the new covenant we have in Christ (Col 2: 17).
Therefore, it is consistent with this change of systems than boys (men) will automatically be circumcised in the old covenant, because their physical descent and physical presence in the community of the Jewish people meant they were members of that community in which the faith was not an entry requirement.
But in the new covenant it is appropriate that infants should not be baptized, and that baptism is given only to those who give evidence of genuine saving faith, because membership in the church is based on the internal spiritual reality, and not in offspring physical.
(3) Examples of the baptism of families in the New Testament are not really critical in terms of one position or the other. When we look at actual examples more closely, we see that many of them there are indications of saving faith of the baptized. For example, it is true that the family of jailer Filopos was baptized (Acts 16: 33), but it is also true that Paul and Silas "they presented the word of God to him and all the others who were in his house" (Acts . 16: 32).
If the word of God was proclaimed to everyone in the house, it is assumed that everyone had enough to understand the word and believe in her age. Even more, after the family was baptized, we read that the jailer Filopos "was delighted with his whole family for believing in God" (Acts 16: 34).
So we have not only a baptism of a family but also receive part of a family of God's word and a whole family rejoices in faith in God. These facts suggest very strongly that the whole family had to individually come to faith in Christ.
With regard to the fact that Paul baptized "to the family of Stephanus" (1 Cor 1: 16), we must also note that Paul tells the Corinthians to that "Family
Stephanus were the first converts in Achaia, and have dedicated themselves to serving the believers. I urge you, brothers "(1 Co 16: 15). So, not only they were baptized; also they became and had worked serving other believers. Again, the example of baptism of families gives no indication of faith families.
In fact, there are other cases where baptism is not mentioned but we see explicit testimony to the fact that a whole family had come to faith. After Jesus healed the son of the officer, we read that the father "believed his whole family" (Jn 4: 53). Similarly, when Paul preached in Corinth "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his family" (Acts 18: 8).
This means that all the examples of "baptism of families" in the New Testament, the only one who does not give any indication of faith family so well is Acts 16: 14-15, speaking of Lydia: "the Lord opened her the heart to respond to Paul's message. When she was baptized with his family. "
The text simply does not contain any information as to whether there were infants at home or not. It is ambiguous, and certainly no compelling evidence for infant baptism. It should be considered inconclusive.
With respect to the claim of Peter at Pentecost that "the promise is for you, for your children," we must note that prayer follows this way:
"Indeed, the promise is for you, for your children and for all foreigners, that is, for all those whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2: 39).
Even more, the same paragraph specifies not that believers and children believers were baptized, but (those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day joined the church about three thousand people "(Acts 2: 41).
(4) Another argument in objection to the paedobaptist position can do when we do the simple question: "What does baptism?" In other words, we can ask: "What actually achieved baptism? What benefit about ? "
Roman Catholics give a clear answer to this question: baptism produces regeneration. And Baptists also have a clear answer: baptism symbolizes the fact that the internal regeneration has already occurred. But paedobaptists can not take any of these responses. Not mean that baptism produces regeneration, nor can say (with respect to children) symbolizing regeneration that has already occurred.
The only alternative seems to be saying that symbolizes regeneration will happen in the future, when the infant is old enough to reach the age saving faith. But even that is not accurate, because it is not certain that the infant will be regenerated in the future; some infants who are baptized never come to have faith that saves later.
So, the most successful of which symbolizes baptism symbolizes paedobaptist likely explanation is that future regeneration. 21 No cause regeneration or actual symbolizes regeneration; therefore to be understood as symbolizing regeneration likely at some point in the future.
But at this point it seems clear that the paedobaptist understanding of baptism is very different from the New Testament. The New Testament never see baptism as something that symbolizes a likely future regeneration. The authors of the New Testament does not say, "Can anyone prevent water to baptize these probably will someday be saved?" (Acts 10: 47), or, "All of you who were baptized into Christ probably someday be put in Christ "(Gal 3: 27), or" Do not you know that all of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus probably one day be baptized into his death "(Rom 6: 3).
This simply is not the way the New Testament speaks of baptism. The baptism in the New Testament is a sign of being born again, being cleansed from sin and the beginning of the Christian life. It is appropriate to reserve this signal to those who give evidence of what is reality in their lives.
Another perspective of the symbolism of baptism gives Michael Green. He says:
Infant baptism emphasizes the objectivity of the gospel. He is pointing to solid achievement of Christ crucified and risen, whether or not respond to it. Not to win any of it unless we repent and believe. But it is a firm demonstration that our salvation does not depend on our own very fallible faith; It depends on what God has done for us.
Then goes on to say:
Infant baptism Underscores Of God In Salvation Initiative. Should I subscribe Primarily A man's response, OA God's initiative? That is the crux of the question. For Bautista, primarly Baptism testifies to what we do in response to the grace of God. For paedobaptist, primarly he testifies to what God has done that makes it possible (Emphasis Suyo).
But they can score several points in response to believe.
(A) His analysis at this point leaves aside the fact that baptism not only symbolizes the death and resurrection of Christ; as we have seen in the previous analysis of the texts of the New Testament, but also symbolizes the application of redemption to us as a result of our response of faith.
Baptism illustrates the fact that we have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, and the washing with water symbolizes that have been cleansed of our sins. In saying that paedobaptists emphasize the initiative of God and Baptists emphasize man's response, submitted believe the reader two incorrect alternatives from which to choose, because baptism illustrates both and more. Baptism illustrates:
(I) the redemptive work of Christ:
(II) my response in faith (when I come to be baptized) and:
(II) the application of God of the benefits of redemption to my life.
The baptism of believers illustrates all these three aspects (and not just my faith, and believe suggests), but according to the notion believe the paedobaptism illustrates only the first.
It is not a matter of what is "primary"; It is a question of what notion of baptism has everything that baptism represents.
(B) When you think it says that our salvation does not depend on our faith but God's work, the term "dependent" lends itself to various interpretations. If "dependent" means "that in which we support ," then of course both sides would agree that we rest in the work of Christ, not in our faith. If "dependent" means that faith has no merit in itself why we can win God's favor, then both sides would agree.
But if "dependent" means that there is no difference in our salvation whether or believe not, then neither side would agree: it believe says in the previous sentence that baptism does not do us any good unless we repent and we create.
Therefore, if baptism somehow represents the application of redemption to a person's life, then it is not enough to practice a form of baptism illustrating only the death and resurrection of Christ; we must also illustrate our response in faith and the subsequent application of redemption to us. In contrast, the notion believe there is a real danger of illustrating a concept (with which they believe would disagree) that God applies redemption to people whether they believe or not.
(5) Finally, advocates for the baptism of believers often express concern about the practical consequences of paedobaptism. They argue that the practice of paedobaptism in real life of the church often leads people baptized in infancy to assume that they have been regenerated, and therefore do not feel the urgency of their need to come to personal faith in Christ.
In a period of years, the trend is likely to result in more and more members unconverted in the "covenant community"; members who are not genuinely members of the Church of Christ. Of course, this would not make false a paedobaptist church, but would make it a less pure church, and often fight against tendencies toward liberal doctrine and other kinds of unbelief that are introduced by the sector composition of the membership.
We have argued above that baptism symbolizes regeneration or spiritual rebirth. But what only symbolizes? Or, is there a way it is also a "means of grace", ie a medium that the Holy Spirit uses to give blessing to people?
We have already considered this question in the previous chapter, "so here it is only necessary to say that when properly performed baptism then of course also gives some spiritual benefit to believers.
There is the blessing of God's favor that comes with all obedience, as well as the joy that comes from the public profession of one's faith, and the security of having a clear physical picture of dying and rising with Christ and washing away of sins .
Surely the Lord gave us baptism to strengthen and promote our faith; and it should be for everyone who is baptized and for every believer who witnesses a baptism.
While we recognize that Jesus commanded baptism (Mt 28: 19), as the apostles (Acts 2:38), we should not say that baptism is necessary for salvation.
This issue was considered to some extent in the response to the Roman Catholic notion of baptism. To say that baptism or any other action necessary for salvation is not to say that we are justified by faith alone, but by faith plus some 'work', the work of baptism.
The apostle Paul would have opposed the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation as strongly as opposed to the similar idea that circumcision is necessary for salvation (cf. Gal 5: 1-12).
Those who argue that baptism is necessary for salvation often point to Mark 16: 16 (He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who believes not shall be damned). But the very obvious answer to this is simply to say that the verse does not say anything about those who believe and are baptized. The verse is simply talking about general cases without any pedantic unusual qualification for someone who believes and is not baptized case. But certainly this verse should not be forced to say something about what is not spoken.
More to the point is the claim of Jesus to the dying thief on the cross: "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk 23: 43). The thief could not be baptized before dying on the cross, but was certainly saved that day. Moreover, the strength of this point can not be evaded by arguing that the thief was saved under the old covenant (under which baptism was not necessary for salvation), for the new pact took effect on the death of Jesus (see Heb 9 : 17), and Jesus died before either of the two thieves who were crucified with him (cf. Jn 19: 32-33).
Another reason that baptism is not necessary for salvation is that our justification of sins takes place at the point of saving faith, and not at the point of water baptism, which usually occurs later. But if the person is already justified and have their sins forgiven eternally at the point of saving faith, then baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, nor for the grant of new spiritual life.
Baptism, then, is not necessary for salvation; but it is necessary for our obedience to Christ, because he commanded baptism to all who believe in him.
Those who are convinced by the arguments for the baptism of believers should then start asking, "What age should have children before being baptized?"
The short answer is that they must be old enough to give a credible profession of faith. It is impossible to fix a precise age to apply to every child, but when parents see compelling evidence of genuine spiritual life, and also some degree of understanding about what it means to trust in Christ, then baptism is appropriate.Of course, this will require careful management of the church, as well as a good explanation of the parents in their homes. The exact age for baptism vary from child to child, and sometimes from church to church too.
Despite many years of division on the issue among Protestants, is there any way in which believers who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of communion?
And, is there any way we can make progress in the church closer to unity on this issue?
One way forward it could be paedobaptist and advocates baptism of believers reach a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and who were willing to live with the point of view of the other in this issue no longer allow differences on baptism be a cause of division within the body of Christ.
Specifically, this would mean allowing them to teach and practice different views on baptism of both sides of the issue.
Surely this would be difficult for both paedobaptists Baptist denominations as denominations, because they have long traditions to argue either side of it. The believers have the right to make their own decisions regarding baptism, but it seems appropriate that the denominational divisions dependent or reinforce these differences, nor seem right that churches require a notion or another on baptism for those who wish to be ordained or work as teachers within the church.
Specifically, this would mean that Baptist churches would have to be willing to allow on their membership to those who have been baptized as infants and those whose conviction of conscience, after careful consideration, it is that his baptism as infants was valid and should not be repeated .
Of course, Baptist churches would be free to teach and try to persuade any prospective member of his church to be baptized as believers, but if some, after careful consideration, are not convinced, does not seem appropriate to make this a barrier to membership.
What good is achieved with such a barrier? And certainly much damage can be done by failing to demonstrate the unity of the church or prohibit full participation in the church those whom the Lord has indeed brought to this communion.
On the other hand, those who believe in the paedobaptism would have to agree not to put undue pressure on parents who do not want to baptize their infants and do not consider these parents disobedient to the Lord in some way. There should be a willingness to have some kind of brief dedication ceremony for the son to the Lord shortly after birth, instead of a baptism ceremony, if parents wish. Of course, both sides would have to agree not to make the notion of baptism one criterion for a position in the church or for ordination.
If such concessions were made in actual practice from both sides on this issue, the issue may well in reducing the level of controversy within a generation effect, and baptism could eventually stop being a dividing point between the believers.
Finally, we can ask, "Who can make the baptism ceremony? Can only ordained clergy perform this ceremony? "
We must recognize here that the Bible simply does not specify any restrictions on who can perform the baptism ceremony. Churches that have a special priesthood by which certain actions (and blessings) come (such as Roman Catholics, and to some extent Anglicans) will want to insist that only the clergy itself ordained to baptize in ordinary circumstances (although could make exceptions in unusual circumstances).
But if we truly believe in the priesthood of all believers (see 1 Peter 2: 4-10), then it seems that there is no need in principle to restrict the right to make baptism only the ordained clergy.
However, there arises another consideration: since baptism is the input signal in the body of Christ, the church (1 Cor 12: 13 on the inner spiritual baptism), it seems appropriate to be done within the communion of the church always When possible, so that the church as a whole can rejoice with which it is baptized and thus the faith of all believers of this church can be built. "
Moreover, since baptism is a sign to start the Christian life and therefore start life in the true church alike, it is appropriate that the local church is gathered to bear witness to this fact and give visible the baptized welcome. Also, in order of who is baptized have a correct understanding of what is actually happening, it is appropriate that the church practice of baptism safeguard and prevent their abuse.
Finally, if baptism is a sign of entering the communion of the church visible, then it seems appropriate that a representative or representatives of the church officially designated are selected to administer it.For these reasons, it is usually the ordained clergy who baptizes, but there seems no reason why the church from time to time, and when appropriate, can not call the church or mature believers to some other officer to baptize new believers.
For example, someone who is effective in evangelism in the local church may be appropriately designated person to baptize those who have come to Christ through the practice of ministry of evangelization of that person. (Note in Acts 8: 12 Philip preached the gospel in Samaria and then apparently baptized those who came to faith in Christ).
Speaking in tongues is spontaneously speak in a language which has not previously learned, or syllables that are not recognized as a language.
Speaking in tongues was in New Testament times and then fell into oblivion for at least eighteen hundred years, but definitely. Some say the second century Montanists spoke in tongues, but few find Biblical based on these static and delusional manifestations of this non-Christian cult. The church fathers did not practice speaking in tongues nor referred to it in his time. In the fourth century, Chrysostom church in the Eastern and Western Augustine spoke of glossolalia as something of the past. In the Middle Ages there are some rare stories of speaking in a foreign language. None of the reformers. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Melanchthon spoke in tongues. Apart from a few vague examples of speaking in tongues in the Middle Ages and the period after the Reformation, called speaking in tongues but at the beginning of the IXX century. There was a silence for eighteen hundred years in terms of languages, and many say that silence is still and that what today is called speaking in tongues has little to do with the Biblical concept.
Today is usually associated with speaking in tongues what is called the second blessing or baptism (or or) = Holy Spirit. There are denominations that believe that a person accepts Christ as Savior from the guilt of sin, that at some later time the Holy Spirit suddenly enters it., So that the same level. As a sinner accepts Christ, but as holy accepts the Holy Spirit. In the first case puts his faith in Christ; in the second, in the Spirit, as proof of this fullness, say, God gives the gift of glossolalia (speaking in tongues). It can be used for self-edification and for encouragement of the congregation. Both the baptism in the Spirit therefore glossolalia is obtained with an intense longing for the baptism of the Spirit, with prayer and with the suppression of all known sin.
As the in tongues is today a widespread practice in many denominations have overcome barriers in numbers for the little scriptural understanding, it is important that the Christian study what the New Testament says about it. Because you can not avoid it. You should know what is biblical. Are you losing something beautiful and uplifting if not speak in tongues? Is there really today the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues or is it some hallucination or a diabolical movement? ¿Speaking in tongues ceased with the end of the neo-testamentary period? A second snapshot blessing you get with a sudden fullness of the Holy Spirit is given? Can one be a better Christian with the baptism of the Spirit and glossolalia? ¿Help these things to the monotonous Christian life often seems so sinful?
In the Bible there is much evidence that speaking in tongues was confined to the Apostolic era, as I intended the tube to confirm the Jews and Gentiles dramatically new work of God in Christ Jesus. But some believe that the evidence is inconclusive. Let us examine the data.
In his first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas met with great opposition in Iconium. In fact, both Jews and Gentiles conspired against them and made plans to put them to death by stoning. Faced with such hostility to Christ's message, which seemed so new both Jews and Gentiles, God did signs and wonders through the Apostles. As Lucas says: '(Paul and Barnabas) stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who gave testimony to the word of his grace, granting to be done by their hands signs and wonders' ( Acts 14: 3). Not mentioned here speaking in tongues, nor other signals. And he may not speaking in tongues in Iconium, but sometimes the languages were given as a sign (1 Cor. 14: 22), and Luke clearly states that the purpose of the signs was to confirm the message of Paul and Barnabas.
Paul develops a similar theme in this passage when he writes; 'Do not dare to speak of what Christ has done through me for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, power of signs and wonders in the power of the Spirit of God. It is interesting that Paul mentions three instruments conversion:
1. The Holy Spirit.
2. The preaching and works of Pablo. Y,
3. The signs and wonders.
According to what Luke says in Acts 14. Paul here he affirms that Christ uses signals (glossolalia could be included as signals) to make the Gentiles obey God. The purpose of the signals was the conversion.
In 2 Corinthians Paul constantly defends his apostolate, and 12: 11 says, 'In nothing have been less than those great apostles, though I am nothing. " Then to prove he was Apostle says in this verse: 'The signs of an apostle were wrought among you'. In other words, signals as proof of his apostolate were given.
'Which (salvation) was first announced by the Lord, was not confirmed by those who heard, God testifying together with them, with signs and wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will. " Here the author clearly speaks of the confirmatory nature of the signals. Christ says he first announced salvation. Then those who heard him, the others confirmed. And finally God added his testimony in the form of signals.
Although Jesus never spoke in tongues. The use he made of signals harmonizes with the purpose of confirming the gospel. John writes: "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. '
Thus, based on passages like these, many claim that speaking in tongues was a sign of the Apostolic was granted by God to authenticate and confirm the gospel and those who preach, to spread beyond the limits of Judaism to the Gentile world. It was his stamp of approval gospel and tube intended to make converts in this new and radically different difficult period. Once achieved this confirmation there was no need for the special mission of apostles or prophets or confirmatory such as speaking in tongues, who accompanied their work signals. Consequently, once firmly established the New Testament church, ministries and signals ceased. This view is very appealing.
Some argue that God is not bound and can continue making signs, including speaking in tongues. We must not restrict the freedom of the Holy Spirit.
It is certainly possible that God is acting through miracles, including speaking in tongues. It may be that genuine miraculous healings are given, although many observers believe has been much exaggerated number. There have been many cases of people 'healed' who died of his illness soon after as it should have gone to doctors, instead of going to ultras expeculístas of faith healers.
So without affirming or denying the continuance of miracles and speaking in tongues in at the present time, and assuming for a moment that continue to occur, the Christian biblical guidance will want to place them in their proper perspective, and the biblical perspective is this : the Bible does not insist on the importance or any convenience speaking leagues, and the only passage in the Bible gives us guidelines about it, he pays little attention. In other words, even if it was in operation today the gift of glossolalia, the Bible does not stand out as a great experience that everyone should look, or even be normal in the Christian life. And the goal of the Christian should be to give only the importance that the Bible gives neither more nor less. So let us examine the evidence.
There in the Old Testament, even in the prophetic passages that refer to Pentecost no mention of speaking in tongues. In the Old Testament speaks of prophecy, healings, miracles and of the Holy Spirit in creation, in common grace, in revelation, in lighting; of Jesus Christ in regeneration, sanctification and prayer. But nowhere is even referred to glossolalia.
Not once in all instruction of Jesus there is an indirect mention of speaking in tongues. Neither Jesus, whom God gave the Spirit without limit (. 34 June 4) practiced. Jesus speaks to us of the important things in life: faith, salvation, sanctification, lighting, prayer, obedience, and divine rules for life. But important enough to mention. Giving all kinds of instructions, commands and examples, but glossolalia is not among them. Who would be bold in contrast with Jesus, you will think that speaking in tongues is the most important experience after salvation.
Some occur in Mark 16: 17-18, as a passage in which Jesus treated speaking in tongues: "And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name cast out demons; Halaran new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; on the sick lay their hands heal '. But this is not to be taken as a claim or opportunity for speculation knowing that you must first believe in Him and His order.
A. There is almost unanimous agreement among Bible scholars, both conservative and liberal, Mark 16: 9-20, was not inspired by the Holy Spirit but added later to the word of God. The judgment of the great Orthodox stronghold, Benjamin Warfield, is as true today as it was 1918 when he wrote: But is so true that (Mark 16: 17-18) espúreo as it can be anything else of this kind. And modern versions of the Bible are all agree on this trial. For example, the New International Version separates verses 8 and 9 with a space and a line and then add a note in the text that says: 'the most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16: 17-18'. Also, the new American Standard Version puts verses 9-20 in brackets (not simple brackets) and adds this note 'Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 to 20'. Other modern versions that give the same treatment to these verses are the New English Bible, the Revised Standard Version, Berkley, Barclay, and beek. The two modern Catholic Bibles, published by decision of the church, said that although this passage is in the canon, was not written by Mark.
B. If these verses are part of the original Bible and Jesus uttered, is arbitrary emphasizing that glossolalia select an element of the teaching of Jesus to the detriment of others, such as drinking poison and take upserpents . These two practices are placed between speaking in tongues and healing the sick. If you need to practice one should be practiced other.
C. But I suppose that is granted for a moment that the Holy Spirit inspires Mark 16: 17. Yet it would be only the only place, among all Scripture where Jesus mentions speaking in tongues. And yet, it is not a mandate, only a prediction that will be practiced. This only incidental reference and still show that Jesus did not consider as very important. Had considered as in the case of faith, love, obedience and prayer, I have taught about it at length and had practiced himself.
None of the four Gospels cites an example of speaking in tongues nor has any of the Apostles giving instructions about it. Thus, more than a third of the entire New Testament is silent about it.
In fact, speaking in tongues is mentioned only three times: Acts 2 (Pentecost), Acts 10: 11 (Cornelius), and Acts 19 (Ephesus). . When examining Pentecost, you should be warned in advance that speaking in tongues of Pentecost was not the same kind of speaking in tongues that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 12: 14.
A . At Pentecost the Apostles spoke in strange for the people who came from many foreign countries languages. No interpreter is needed. But in the case of static speak 1 Corinthians 12: 14. Paul says that no one could understand what they were saying unless they are interpreted. This looks like most of the speaking in tongues today, which is not done in a foreign language, and is different from the Pentecostal glossolalia.
B. At Pentecost the ability to communicate in a foreign language was in the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament. But in the Corinthian church speaking in tongues he was in a church that had already surpassed this transition.
C. At Pentecost came once as initiatory experience, but Corito was a continuous gift.
D. At Pentecost all present spoke in tongues, but in Corinth only some had the gift.
E. A final difference and that at Pentecost the ability to speak in foreign languages was given to confirm and authenticate the dramatic manifestation of the Holy Spirit, while in Corinth speaking in tongues was primarily for the edification of the same person and the church .
For these reasons it is not possible to use the Pentecostal experience of speaking in tongues as a basis for the speaking in tongues of Corinth nor for today. They are totally different.
In this passage Luke tells how in the early church, not long after Pentecost, the gospel spread to a Gentile, Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian regiment. The result of Peter's visit to Cornelius was that the Holy Spirit came upon all the Gentiles who heard, and all spoke in tongues. This phenomenon of speaking in tongues is not of the same nature as the so-called speaking in tongues today. Adviértanse differences.
A. In Acts 10 , the Holy Spirit came upon all and all spoke in tongues. In the case of Corinth or today, only a few in the church speak in tongues.
B. In Acts 10 there was a long search of the Spirit or the intense desire thereof, as usually ask the glosolalistas today. No conditions have to be fulfilled occurred. Rather, explaining Peter the gospel for the first time, the Spirit came upon them and spoke in tongues. It was a dramatic gift of God and not the result of human effort.
C. In the case of Cornelius the special gifts of the Holy Spirit and glossolalia came only on those who accepted Christ for the first time and had not even been baptized. They did not come on Peter and the six men who had come with him and who were already believers. In the modern movement it is intended that the Holy Spirit and glossolalia comes only upon believers some time after being saved. But here faith, the coming of the Spirit and glossolalia were simultaneous. As Cornelius and his household believed, the Spirit came upon them and they all spoke in leagues. After this, they were baptized as asign that they had been regenerated (Acts 11: 17-18).
In this passage God says basically that l gospel is not for the Jews but for the Gentiles. This was the purpose of Peter's vision, in which God commanded him to eat food that had fallen on a canvas of the sky, though the food had been forbidden by Jewish law for centuries. For the Jews, who for two thousand years had been accustomed to think that they were God's chosen people and that Gentiles were anathema to God, it was hard to believe that God had changed. Therefore, as confirmation of that fact, God acted in dramatic form both at Pentecost and in the cas of Cornelius. Peter said, 'Fell Holy Spirit upon them, as on us at the beginning "(Acts 11: 15), referring to Pentecost. On these Gentiles who believed for the first time, God sent the sign of speaking in tongues to confirm that the Spirit had actually been given. This external test convinced the Jewish believers in the Jerusalem church, so they said: '! So to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life' (Acts 11: 18).
This passage tells us about the visit to the Gentiles of Ephesus; how the Ephesians had been baptized with the baptism of John, but now through the ministry of Paul were baptized in Christ; how the Holy Spirit came upon them; and how they spoke in tongues prophesied.
The events of Ephesus are very similar to those related to Cornelius and has very little to do with modern glossolalia:
A. The gift of tongues came to the Gentiles.
B. Wine above all, not a few.
C. was simultaneously with the subsequent believe and not as a second blessing.
D. There was no fulfillment of certain conditions rather than the only biblical requirement of repentance sin and faith in Christ.
E. Its purpose was to confirm the action of God to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. The Ephesians had been baptized with the baptism of John. But now that Christ had now died the Spirit at Pentecost had come, it was important that they be renamed, this time in Christ. And as a sign of God's pleasure in this dramatic change from Jewish to Gentile, God gives these gentiles Ephesian the outpouring of the Spirit and the outward manifestations of speaking in tongues and prophesying.
Thus, summing up the three places dealing in facts speaking in leagues we see that this gift is not the same as speaking in tongues today. Today is a desired signal arriving some time after one accepts Christ as Savior, that comes to few, and whose purpose is loa building of the speaker or others in the church. But at the time of Acts, speaking in tongues came unsought, at the time of conversion., Over all, and in order to show God's pleasure in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles. Thus we find again some biblical support for speaking in tongues.
The great passage about speaking in tongues is in three chapters of 1 Corinthians. This is the only passage in the Bible that deals with the speaking in tongues that is for building and resembles the modern movement of glossolalia. The remarkable thing that should be noted is that in this Pauline passage about glossolalia Paul extols not speaking in tongues but gives little importance. This should mean much to anyone who wishes to speak in tongues today. To realize the truth of that statement, see the following:
A. In these chapters Paul speaks of special spiritual gifts and not just speaking in tongues. Glossolalia is just one of many special gifts listed in this section. One of its most important points is that God is pleased to diversity and that as the hand, the ear, the eye can not exalt themselves above the other body parts., So no one who has been blessed with a specific spiritual gift you should rise above others.
B. Three times Paul lists the gifts, places the speaking in tongues or interpretation accompanying last (1 Corinthians 12: 8-10; 12: 28-30 . ; 14: 26). This does not necessarily mean that consciously consider speaking in tongues as least, but speaking in tongues as the least important, but with all his insistence on intelligence and wisdom, which highly values comes first, as wisdom and knowledge in a list, an Apostle or prophet in the other, or a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation or a third list.
C. The true baptism of the Spirit comes not as a subsequent by accepting Christ as Savior subitánea blessing, and. It comes at the same time of such acceptance. 'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body "(1 Cor . 12: 13). Baptism by the Spirit means to be made a Christian by the Holy Spirit.
D. Love is more important than the leagues (chapter 13). What a remarkable are the words of Paul!Throughout the Bible we have one place where he gives instructions on glossolalia, and in the same place Paul says there is something better. Writes; 'Covet earnestly the best gifts. More I show you a more excellent way "(1 Cor . 12: 31), namely love (chapter 13). In other words, after a Christian has been saved, the best thing to look for is not a sudden infusion of the Holy Spirit, confirmed by speaking in tongues, but love, love that is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5: 22). Paul continues in chapter 14, praising the gift of leagues, but this is much better than ordinary virtue of love. Thus, in the center of this special section about the gifts (chapters 12-14) itself. Paul highlights and emphasizes love as the most important of all. This should focus on the Christian. That should be their priorities, not special gifts, but in love.
E. In 1 Corinthians 14: 1, Paul stands out with speaking in tongues but prophecy, as the best spiritual gift to look. He writes: 'desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy "(1 Cor . 14: 1) speaking in leagues is fine, says Paul, and it is desirable for a person to build itself; but he who prophesies edifies the church and this is better (1 Cor . 14: 4). Thus, Paul continues, 'I wish you all spoke in leagues, but rather that ye prophesied. (1 Cor . 14: 5). His long reasoning is that speaking in leagues is unintelligible to others and therefore builds. But the 8No prophesying only predict the future, but speaking in thename of God) can understand and therefore builds up the church. So, Paul says, 'Try to elaborate on the (spiritual gifts) for the edification of the church (1 Cor . 14: 12), and speaking in tongues is not one of them.
F. Even in this one great passage about spiritual gifts Paul does not ordain anyone who speaks in tongues.He says that speaking in tongues 'is built so it' and that 'I wish you all spoke in tongues, but rather that ye prophesied' (1 Cor . 14: 5). If you send the church not forbid speaking in tongues (1 Cor . 14: 39), but nowhere commanded to speak in tongues. The closest he comes is sending in 1 Cor. 14: 1, 'desire spiritual gifts'. But this refers to all the gifts, and not only languages, and is not strictly speaking a command to all, as is the term 'love your neighbor as yourself'. In matters of salvation or sanctification or observation of the law or prayer or baptism or the Lord's Supper or await the return of Christ, the Bible gives many mandates, but never sends anyone who speaks in tongues.
G. guidelines pablo restrict the use of glossolalia. In 1 Corinthians 14: 26-27, it establishes four restrictions:
I. Speaking in tongues should be for the strengthening of the church.
II. In a worship service should talk only two or at most three.
III. They should speak one at a time.
IV. There must be an interpreter.
By considering Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews ,, Santiago, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation not mentioned anywhere speaking in tongues.
So, to return to our main thesis presented at the beginning of this study: there may be genuine today speak in tongues, though many Christians doubt it. However, if any, it should be given the same importance given the Bible. We should not negligir what the Bible teaches, not extol what the Bible extols.
Therefore we find that the four Gospels do not give even an example of speaking in tongues or instructions about it. Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if we accept the authenticity of Mark 16. 17, not once commanded speaking in tongues. In Acts we have only three cases of glossolalia and are different from talking modern ecstatic. Even if they were in the same class, they would be only examples and not necessarily standards for our life; ie examples and not mandates. Note that out of 1 Corinthians 12: 14, even alludes to glossolalia.
Now if glossolalia was so crucial to our spiritual well-being, if a second infusion of the Holy Spirit, manifested in speaking in tongues, was so vital pair our holy life, then Jesus Christ and the Bible had failed to let us understand. Because in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, there is only clear passage that deal speaking in tongues as an ongoing gift (not as initial gift), and in this unique place Paul downplays and exalts love as much important. Nowhere in the Bible it is a term that speaking in tongues. Keep silence in this regard. Accordingly. If day there is today the gift of tongues is given by God, is fine, should be used, but should quitársele importance, in the same way they did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
By practicing languages, however, should be alert to deception of the external. Because by nature we would all like to dramatic and tangible for our faith. We find more comfort in the external signals that the internal action of the Spirit in the heavens in which the heart is opened to open. But the Christian life is not life fire, wind, earthquakes, visions and angelic appearances; but life is a silent but powerful action of the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not so much visible tangible things like having patience with a nervous child, take with joy trash bags and talk to a widow at the end of the cult. Sanctification is not so much talking dramatic in tongues and be friendly with someone who yells one in love instead of hate when someone sneaks in a row, and refrain from using furiously highlights when the carriage that oncoming not respond to the signal light down.
In the past God has allowed a few have special gifts of the Holy Spirit, but at all times we are commanded to be holy. What is needed is not so much the gifts of the Spirit as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5: 22). And this will only insofar as Christ and the Spirit dwell in us, Christ is the vine and we are the branches (John 15) the Spirit is the tree and our good works are the fruit (Gal. 5). We must try not to get drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5; 18). Paul does not teach a sudden and abundant presence of the Spirit, after being saved. Rather speech, that daily constant action of the Spirit in our lives, through which we grow (do not give jumps) in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Christian should not be fooled into thinking that there are shortcuts to holiness, with three lessons that can reach spiritual maturity, or replace languages holiness. Holiness does not come in a sudden experience of glossolalia, but with the constant struggle against sin and run the Christian race.
That's where the action takes place; not on the outside, but on the internal action of the Spirit; not the drama of languages but in the action of love, and this comes as long as the Spirit dwells in us. When a person experiences Ephesians 5: 18, it will continue to Galatians 5. 22. We should therefore pray, not so much to ask for love languages but not so much to ask for the gift of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit, not so much to ask for evidence visible but the quiet and effective action of the Holy Spirit. 'Herein is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit "(John 15: 8).