Can a person have the Holy Spirit and not know it?

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
When I received the Holy Spirit is was an EXPERIENCE. There is no way NOT to know. Some only believe in Him theologically, but have never been baptized in the Holy Spirit; they only think they have Him inside. It was quite a shock to me to realize that for 30 years of going to church, I wasn't even born again - until I was. Life changed drastically.
You are speaking of the so-called Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that is what the question is asking. When we get saved, we are all given a measure of the Holy Spirit... In that instance, my point is correct and stands as written... The so-called Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a different HS experience where, yes, you will know when that event occurred...
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Maybe you are right. I actually received both at the same time. And it isn't "so-called." It is real and powerful. I guess I don't know what it is like to just have the silent visitation of the Holy Spirit you called a measure of faith. I only know the full-on experience that gives you power over sin, PLUS most of the gifts, including dreams and visions. Can you tell me what it is like to go from sinner to just the measure of faith? I actually need to know that. Did you receive the Holy Spirit in two sessions? What was the first one like?
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
My first experience was described above. It was very emotional in that I felt the complete removal of guilt and fear of Hell. I felt forgiveness that cleansed me completely. I wept for a lengthy time... My second large experience was a year or so later. That is when I experienced what some call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit... That was even more joyful...
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
My first experience was described above. It was very emotional in that I felt the complete removal of guilt and fear of Hell. I felt forgiveness that cleansed me completely. I wept for a lengthy time... My second large experience was a year or so later. That is when I experienced what some call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit... That was even more joyful...
Mine was extreme joy. My cheeks hurt from smiling. I also felt light as a feather, like a great weight had been lifted off me - must have been all the sin in my fallen nature. Whew! Glad to be rid of that!
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Here is the Gospel summarized by Paul:

15 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Of course we are sealed with the Holy Spirit... But that is not the Gospel... What you are adding is not dangerous... But what you did do was imply that someone who has not heard of the Holy Spirit is not saved... I know when I was saved. But I did not have an understanding of the Holy Spirit. So when I did come alive to Christ, I felt the release from guilt. I felt a joy. It took studying scripture and praying to know and understand who the Holy Spirit is...
Good. I found it. (Your first experience).

For me there was also a 6 year period where I went from being a Cessationist in knowledge, to actually getting that double dose of the Holy Spirit. Up until that moment, I had no focus on the Holy Spirit, my question was is there really a God at all?
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Of course he did as he had followers who I imagine could see it in him. But we don't have his full testimony to really comment on.
Ok, so explain the Samaritans Phillip went and preached to. He had baptized them as well.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Ok, so explain the Samaritans Phillip went and preached to. He had baptized them as well.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking so I'll just tell you what I know about those verses.

This was the beginning of the Church. Up until then, the Holy Spirit was just in prophets, or in the anointing of Kings. Now He fell on all the believers in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. (Without laying on of hands). Phillip was not the apostle, but was a deacon. First Phillip is seen baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch, but no mention of the Holy Spirit falling on him (???), then is transported to Samaria where the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen. It took two apostles to go and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. So we have three different events, all different regarding the Spirit. The eunuch is the one I'm baffled by. Phillip had the Spirit, so why didn't he lay hands on him to receive, or even the Samaritans? At the time of the apostles it could be that God was only letting the apostles have that authorization. But not always. Remember Cornelius when the Spirit first went to the Gentiles? He and his whole family received the Spirit without laying on of hands, and THEN were baptized in water. Another formula broken. (That the Holy Spirit comes as a result of water baptism). God won't be put in a box with all our man-made, small minded doctrines.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking so I'll just tell you what I know about those verses.

This was the beginning of the Church. Up until then, the Holy Spirit was just in prophets, or in the anointing of Kings. Now He fell on all the believers in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. (Without laying on of hands). Phillip was not the apostle, but was a deacon. First Phillip is seen baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch, but no mention of the Holy Spirit falling on him (???), then is transported to Samaria where the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen. It took two apostles to go and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. So we have three different events, all different regarding the Spirit. The eunuch is the one I'm baffled by. Phillip had the Spirit, so why didn't he lay hands on him to receive, or even the Samaritans? At the time of the apostles it could be that God was only letting the apostles have that authorization. But not always. Remember Cornelius when the Spirit first went to the Gentiles? He and his whole family received the Spirit without laying on of hands, and THEN were baptized in water. Another formula broken. (That the Holy Spirit comes as a result of water baptism). God won't be put in a box with all our man-made, small minded doctrines.
Consider:

(John 20 ESV)

22 And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

and

(Acts 4 ESV)

When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.

Salvation and anointing?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Consider:

(John 20 ESV)

22 And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

and

(Acts 4 ESV)

When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.

Salvation and anointing?
Yes, but I think I've forgotten, if I ever knew, what your underlying point is?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Why the Apostles went and laid hands on the Samaritans.

never mind
I hope I explained it for you. If not in John 20 Jesus breathed on them. (Jesus is God)

In Acts 2 the Holy Spirit fell on the Jewish followers of Christ (the Holy Spirit is God), also in Acts 4 (the second anointing)

The Holy Spirit had not fallen in Samaria, so the 2 apostles imparted the Holy Spirit to them by the laying on of hands.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
I hope I explained it for you. If not in John 20 Jesus breathed on them. (Jesus is God)

In Acts 2 the Holy Spirit fell on the Jewish followers of Christ (the Holy Spirit is God), also in Acts 4 (the second anointing)

The Holy Spirit had not fallen in Samaria, so the 2 apostles imparted the Holy Spirit to them by the laying on of hands.
Are there 2 kinds of imparting.

The Eunuch did not receive the laying on of hands by Apostles but he was surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The Samaritans were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the laying on of hands.
Apollos and his followers were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized again.

So there is a difference between being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit falling on you.
What do you think?
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
You know, these are great questions. I hope you don't believe you have the answers...because the temptation of revelation is to solve part of a mystery and then make of it a dogma...or just more papal bull, as the Romans have done.
Are there 2 kinds of imparting.
It's my guess...guess only...that there are seven. You don't ever hear of the "seven-fold father" or the "seven-fold" Jesus, but the seven-fold Spirit of God is mentioned in both the Old and the New Testaments.

The Eunuch did not receive the laying on of hands by Apostles but he was surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I don't see where the Bible uses your terminology. I'm assuming you are suggesting an interpretation here. The Eunuch is clearly buttressing Paul's view expressed in Romans 2...but even then, Paul speaks without further explanation:
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​
The Samaritans were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the laying on of hands.
Again...you're fitting the narrative into your presumption, and one can argue that it fits neatly. However, do not ignore that when the Samaritans were baptized in the Spirit, something happened so pronounced, that the magician was willing to pay for the "trick" he witnessed. Bad tricks don't sell, and good tricks don't sell cheaply. Simon was willing to pay.
Apollos and his followers were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized again.
Again...Luke says Apollos knew everything perfectly concerning Jesus Christ, but he did not know anything about the baptism of Jesus, as John the Baptist described it, "with the Holy Spirit and with Fire." You can safely say, after the sower has done his work, that "the field is indwelt by the seed..." but there is something of Life that has yet to arrive.

So there is a difference between being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit falling on you.
What do you think?
I don't think Luke's language is consistent enough to be dogmatic with any of the inadequate descriptions we use to testify to our own experience.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
You know, these are great questions. I hope you don't believe you have the answers...because the temptation of revelation is to solve part of a mystery and then make of it a dogma...or just more papal bull, as the Romans have done.
Nope. I am reading and seeing "apparent" contradictions. Only trying to avoid contradiction.
It's my guess...guess only...that there are seven. You don't ever hear of the "seven-fold father" or the "seven-fold" Jesus, but the seven-fold Spirit of God is mentioned in both the Old and the New Testaments.
I wanted to bring that in to what I was saying but decided to wait with that one.
I don't see where the Bible uses your terminology. I'm assuming you are suggesting an interpretation here. The Eunuch is clearly buttressing Paul's view expressed in Romans 2...but even then, Paul speaks without further explanation:
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

When are you sealed by the Holy Spirit is what my terminology is about.
Paul writes that when you believed you are sealed.
So the Eunuch and those in Samaria and Apollos and and and... all sealed.
Then there is the Laying on of Hands, and shaking of a building and be filled with the Holy Spirit

Again...you're fitting the narrative into your presumption, and one can argue that it fits neatly. However, do not ignore that when the Samaritans were baptized in the Spirit, something happened so pronounced, that the magician was willing to pay for the "trick" he witnessed. Bad tricks don't sell, and good tricks don't sell cheaply. Simon was willing to pay.
Check again. Simon was already eyeing what was happening when signs and wonders followed Philip when he preached there. Before Peter came, he already wanted it for himself
Again...Luke says Apollos knew everything perfectly concerning Jesus Christ, but he did not know anything about the baptism of Jesus, as John the Baptist described it, "with the Holy Spirit and with Fire." You can safely say, after the sower has done his work, that "the field is indwelt by the seed..." but there is something of Life that has yet to arrive.

I don't think Luke's language is consistent enough to be dogmatic with any of the inadequate descriptions we use to testify to our own experience.

25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Salvation and anointing? Baptism in water and Baptism by Fire?
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Nope. I am reading and seeing "apparent" contradictions. Only trying to avoid contradiction.
Alrighty then.

I wanted to bring that in to what I was saying but decided to wait with that one.
Isn't it strange, too, that the One of the Three nearest to us is the least understood of all?
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

When are you sealed by the Holy Spirit is what my terminology is about.
Sealed is biblical. And this happens when you "hear" and "receive," because faith comes by healing. The seal, then, is on the one who believes. What do you think?
Paul writes that when you believed you are sealed.
And you believed when you heard...
So the Eunuch and those in Samaria and Apollos and and and...all sealed.
I think you're also using the term "indwelt" to be synonymous with "sealed." Is that correct? Not being petulant, just clarifying...It can be argued that they are synonymous.
Then there is the Laying on of Hands, and shaking of a building and be filled with the Holy Spirit
I'm in favor of institutionalizing the shaking of the building...like tinkling the sleigh bells in a Catholic mass...

I'm not quick to assert that Phillip did not lay hands on the eunuch, just because Luke does not mention it. Phillip was there in Samaria, when the apostles completed the work he had started. I don't think he so quickly forgot...and this cannot be proven from silence. I believe it is a specious argument that only apostles laid hands on folks for the baptism of the Spirit. Miracles were being performed in Galatia in Paul's absence. He speaks of them.

Check again. Simon was already eyeing what was happening when signs and wonders followed Philip when he preached there. Before Peter came, he already wanted it for himself
I'm missing your point...Before Peter came, he had been baptized. What is your opinion? Sealed by that act? Or not sealed...?
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Salvation and anointing? Baptism in water and Baptism by Fire?
No...anointing is Spirit, of which Apollos knew nothing. I'm quite dogmatic here: Luke differentiates between the baptism of John, by water, and the baptism of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit...and is careful to distinguish the one from the other.

Apollos knew nothing of the Charismatic church. Priscilla and Aquila, Paul's partners in Corinth, having worked for three years with him there, were very familiar with the working of the Holy Spirit and His intent in a church body. That's why they sent Apollos off to Corinth (Achaia is the province of which Corinth is the capital), to further his own experience in a church already active. With his expertise in teaching, he was able to water Paul's work in Corinth...and stir up preferences and division within the church of which Paul wrote in his first epistle to them.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Are there 2 kinds of imparting.

The Eunuch did not receive the laying on of hands by Apostles but he was surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The Samaritans were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the laying on of hands.
Apollos and his followers were surely indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized again.

So there is a difference between being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit falling on you.
What do you think?
There is no difference in how you receive the Holy Spirit. Baptized with fire/a place filled with the Holy Spirit/indwelt/anointed. It is all up to the Spirit.

Once He is inside you, it is up to Him how much of His power He releases to you, and when and how often. Even some gifts require more power than others it seems. Pastors sometimes feel an extra anointing when delivering a sermon.

This is just a guess, but the Eunuch was a Gentile. The Spirit was first only for the Jews that were of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Then imparted to the Samaritans by the laying on of hands only who were also sons of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob but in history had fallen into other gods. But the reason the apostles went was because they did not have the Holy Spirit yet. Just baptized. No hands were laid on the first Gentiles, Acts 10, Cornelius and his family, so it is possible, though not written about, the Eunuch received the Spirit all by himself then as he had already been baptized. I know I was all by myself, with no hands laid on me when I received. And the Spirit prompted me to be water baptized again for the fourth time. But for the right reasons for the first time.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
There is no difference in how you receive the Holy Spirit. Baptized with fire/a place filled with the Holy Spirit/indwelt/anointed. It is all up to the Spirit.

Once He is inside you, it is up to Him how much of His power He releases to you, and when and how often. Even some gifts require more power than others it seems. Pastors sometimes feel an extra anointing when delivering a sermon.
I disagree...He comes to you as a seed, and it depends on the soil you prepared for Him. Where there are weeds or rocks, there will not be much presence.

This is just a guess, but the Eunuch was a Gentile.
Luke makes him a worshiper, who deliberately came to worship in Jerusalem. There had been proselyte Ethiopians since the Queen of Sheba, and Ethiopia is proud of its Jewish heritage...even so far as some claiming that the Ark of the Covenant is hidden there. No kidding.

The Spirit was first only for the Jews that were of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Then imparted to the Samaritans by the laying on of hands only who were also sons of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob but in history had fallen into other gods. But the reason the apostles went was because they did not have the Holy Spirit yet. Just baptized. No hands were laid on the first Gentiles, Acts 10, Cornelius and his family, so it is possible, though not written about, the Eunuch received the Spirit all by himself then as he had already been baptized. I know I was all by myself, with no hands laid on me when I received. And the Spirit prompted me to be water baptized again for the fourth time. But for the right reasons for the first time.
With this the Bible agrees...if the Holy Spirit had not yet been received, the apostles did something to assure Jesus' baptism. There are enough instances, as with Cornelius, that nothing else was necessary but an open heart and ears that hear.
 
Top