Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

[mark kennedy]

The Law was the ministry of death. As Romans 7:13 says it was the sin nature that was at fault, not the law. The whole difference between the Old Testament of Law, and the New Testament is the Holy Spirit.

You bet, the role of the Holy Spirit has been greatly expanded. Oholiab and Bezaiel (Ex. 31) were given divine knowledge and wisdom for building the Tabranacle. Paul tells us that all believers are ao equipped to build up the Temple of the Church, the body of Christ.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I would further declare that everyone's gift is unique. If everyone were to speak in tongues the same way I would be suspicious. Here is a lady in our church speaking in tongues. There was clearly a prophetic word given here. If someone were obedient to the Lord and the Holy Spirit we would have found out what that word was. We would rather someone, though, remain silent, then to give out an interpretation to speaking in tongues that simply was not with it.

I watched the video.

 

[Albion]

Ecstacies were pretty common in the Hellenistic world, New Testament tongues was reqular human languages. You can't fake the genuine article.

Glossolalia isn't a genuine language. That's why advocates try to explain it as the language that the angels speak (!) or call it ecstatic speech, meaning just meaningless words but heartfelt and therefore some sort of prayer form.

Many studies have shown that what is uttered isn't a real language, which most people can tell anyway. That isn't to say that might mean something to the person doing it, that there is a psychological benefit.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

Understanding the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts is difficult. But I found the keys are the Ethiopian Eunuch Acts 8:27 and the Samarians Acts 8:5. In essence, all had the Holy Spirit but only the Samarians had the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

These received the gift of the Holy Spirit according to Peter in Acts 2:28 just as we do today. But the Samarians also received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit through the apostle’s hands which the Eunuch did not.

On Pentecost God baptized the 12 Apostles with the Holy Spirit who also spoke in tongues. According to Acts 2:38 the eunuch and the Samarians had the gift of the Holy Spirit through Philip’s preaching. But Philip could not provide the baptism of the Holy Spirit for either. Acts reveals that beyond the two outpourings, only the Apostles through the laying on of their hands could baptize people in the Holy Spirit. It was the proof of apostleship Hebrews 2:4.

When the Apostles visited the Samarian converts, they laid their hands on them baptizing them in the Holy Spirit. But this was not the case with the Eunuch. It says he went on his way rejoicing after Philip baptized him in water.

So the Samarians and the Eunuch received the gift of the Holy Spirit through Philip’s preaching. But only the Samarians received the baptism with the Holy Spirit through the Apostles’ hands.

About 7 years later, God poured out the Holy Spirit on the gentiles at Cornelius’ house which resulted in their speaking in tongues just as the Apostles did at Pentecost.

Scripture doesn’t mention the 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost as baptized with the Holy Spirit. Nor the 5,000 converts days later. But we might assume those whom the Apostles baptized in water also received the baptism with the Holy Spirit through their hands. But anyone baptized by someone other than an apostle would have been like the Eunuch who received only the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Later, Paul preached to the disciples at Ephesus Acts 19:1. These like the Eunuch received the gift of the Holy Spirit. But they also received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit through the apostle’s hands the same way the Samarians did.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit provided God’s word through tongues and prophecy until the New Testament canon became complete. How do we know this? Paul says scripture thoroughly equips us 2 Timothy 3:17. Paul said tongues and prophecy provided only partial knowledge 1 Corinthians 13:9. So it makes sense scripture replaced them when completed.

Beyond Acts, the Corinthians no doubt received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit through Paul’s hands. And Paul mentioned he wanted to visit the Romans to give spiritual gifts to them too Romans 1:11. Paul mentions laying his hands on Timothy who also received a gift 2 Timothy 1:6.

So we can say scripture directly supports the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for those ministered to by an apostle. That it was not for all. The Baptism with the Holy Spirit passed into history with the rest of the apostles Hebrews 2:4 because only they provided it as a sign of their authority. And that scripture replaced the fragmentary gifts of tongues and prophecy with the completed revelation. And we can confidently say believers from Pentecost on have the gift of Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38, but not the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Just as the Eunuch and believers since then.

I have to disagree. I knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (spookily called the Holy Ghost when I got saved) and I rejected the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for some years. A Pentecostal minister prayed for me and I was healed of two chronic ailments instantly. I changed my mind a little. I decided that it was for a particular group of Christians that did not include me. After much soul searching, researching the Bible and reading many books, I came to the conclusion that it was valid for today. At the time the charismatic renewal was in full swing.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding and outright deception in Pentecostal circles. A great danger is spiritual pride, a sense that the recipient of a gift suddenly becomes superior to the ungifted. Some the most amazing, loving, caring Christians I know are baptised in the Holy Spirit. Some of the hardest, legalistic, coldest and critical are Pentecostals. Let's not confuse gifts and fruit.

For me, it was definitely a second experience. For others, it is at the same time as they are born again. If the Church was as vibrant, loving, united, caring and sharing as it was in the early days, I'd perhaps wonder if the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was no longer necessary. I wish I could say that. I cannot.

 

[Albion]

Shall we take it, then, that only a Pentecostal minister praying for your healing could have had his prayers rewarded by God in the way you described?

No Baptist minister, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. minister would have had his prayers answered by God?????

 

[CharismaticLady]

You bet, the role of the Holy Spirit has been greatly expanded. Oholiab and Bezaiel (Ex. 31) were given divine knowledge and wisdom for building the Tabranacle. Paul tells us that all believers are ao equipped to build up the Temple of the Church, the body of Christ.

This is the way I see things. The thing that separated man from God in the Garden of Eden was sin. The Ten Commandments were given so that sin could be seen as SIN! The reason why Jesus came was not to free us from the law, but to free us from SIN!!!

 

[mark kennedy]

Glossolalia isn't a genuine language. That's why advocates try to explain it as the language that the angels speak (!) or call it ecstatic speech, meaning just meaningless words but heartfelt and therefore some sort of prayer form.

Many studies have shown that what is uttered isn't a real language, which most people can tell anyway. That isn't to say that might mean something to the person doing it, that there is a psychological benefit.

Yes I know, I don't like to dwell on it because while Pentecostals aren't speaking in New Testament tongues, but they are New Testament Christians. Tongues have been reported here and there down through church history but they are very rare.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the way I see things. The thing that separated man from God in the Garden of Eden was sin. The Ten Commandments were given so that sin could be seen as SIN! The reason why Jesus came was not to free us from the law, but to free us from SIN!!!

The word for knowledge in knowledge used for 'knowledge of good and evil', in Genesis 3 is not used again until Exodus 31 and the building of the Tabernacle.

The Burnt, Sin, Thanksgiving...etc, sacrifices had been implemented, the purification of the priests, finally the fire from before the Lord (Lev.9) had become the sacrificial flame of the altar that could never go out.

The Law came at Sinai but when you think about it, which of the Ten Commandment are invalid? Before the Law came the commandment came to love the LORD with all your heart mind soull and strength. We now know we love God because he first loved us. We also know God has to write his Law on our hearts. The New Testament is basically the Law turned upside down.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The word for knowledge in knowledge used for 'knowledge of good and evil', in Genesis 3 is not used again until Exodus 31 and the building of the Tabernacle.

The Burnt, Sin, Thanksgiving...etc, sacrifices had been implemented, the purification of the priests, finally the fire from before the Lord (Lev.9) had become the sacrificial flame of the altar that could never go out.

The Law came at Sinai but when you think about it, which of the Ten Commandment are invalid? Before the Law came the commandment came to love the LORD with all your heart mind soull and strength. We now know we love God because he first loved us. We also know God has to write his Law on our hearts. The New Testament is basically the Law turned upside down.

I see the Ten Commandments as surface sins, whereas the Spirit goes deep to the root, so of course if you pull out the root, the whole plant dies. So if you never hate, you will never advance all the way to murder, etc.

 

[Guojing]

I think the era of signs have probably past.

During Jesus time, as well as early Acts, one can get healed merely when Jesus is there, or when Peter or Paul is there. Although faith in the sick plays some part of it, some healing took place even when the receiver had zero faith.

Now, when we pray for healing, we keep focusing on the faith of the receiver.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Shall we take it, then, that only a Pentecostal minister praying for your healing could have had his prayers rewarded by God in the way you described?

No Baptist minister, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. minister would have had his prayers answered by God?????

That is not what I said. My very early experiences with Pentecostals turned me off. My experience with the founder of Teen Challenge in Sydney was the opposite. I'd been born again for a matter of months so I knew absolutely nothing. The Baptist church I attended at the time did not pray for healing. The Teen Challenge guy had what I now know to be a "word of knowledge" about my condition. He prayed for me and I was healed, instantly. God answers the prayer of faith in Jesus name. I was in the armed service at the time I was born again. I travelled most of South East Asia. I went to different churches, whatever I could find, wherever I happened to be. I have no denominational affiliation. Perhaps that is because I saw that the things that unite Christians are far greater than petty doctrinal differences that divide. Some of those churches accepted the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Others did not. I do not myself speak in tongues. Others that I know and respect do. I see the spiritual gifts manifested frequently in my own fellowship.

 

[Swan7]

Jesus talked with a Pharisee about becoming born again. John the Baptist baptized people into repentance, hence the water symbolism. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, baptized with the Holy Spirit - which is still true today.

You cannot have one without the other (new birth without the HS), which seems to me like saying you have to rely on self (your own works rather than the HS).

How can you be born again without the Strong Man residing in you?

 

[devin553344]

Point for point scripture says the baptism came through the two outpourings or through an apostle's hands. Prove otherwise.

Your doctrine reminds me of people saying the gifts of the spirit have ended in Jesus' time. While I have read the scriptures time and time again, I cannot point out where either has ended. Does scripture actually come out and say that?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Agree. And yet it's only tongues-speaking, which is the most easily imitated of the various "gifts," that is the be-all and end-all for those who are into this sort of thing. It's not hard to figure out why that is.

That's a sweeping statement. I'm "into that sort of thing" but I personally have not spoken in tongues for over 20 years. I don't have the desire any more. The obsession with tongues is indeed an issue. For those who think that the gifts are more important than fruit, I invite them to read Paul's letter to the Corinthians. However, gifts are invaluable in ministry. One "word of knowledge" at the appropriate time can reveal the true problem that a person is suffering. That's just one example.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Then why didn't Paul spend more time performing baptisms? 1 Corinthians 1:14-15



Like posters have already mentioned, there is no difference between being Born Again and Holy Spirit baptism. God does what He wants and sends the Spirit to whom He desires. God doesnt need human hands to baptize anyone. It happens at His will John 3:8

I did not have hands laid on me to receive the Holy Spirit. I was born again about 4-1/2 years before I was baptised in the Holy Spirit. It really was very simple. I just asked and I received. I was on my own, not in a meeting where emotions can stir people up. There is no formula. Just ask - like Jesus said to.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I did not have hands laid on me to receive the Holy Spirit. I was born again about 4-1/2 years before I was baptised in the Holy Spirit. It really was very simple. I just asked and I received. I was on my own, not in a meeting where emotions can stir people up. There is no formula. Just ask - like Jesus said to.

Sorry, that should be 3-1/2 years.

 

[DamianWarS]

But this was not the case with the Eunuch. It says he went on his way rejoicing after Philip baptized him in water.

I'm confused? is Philip not an apostle too? what are you claiming here that Philip didn't lay his hands on the Eunuch to receive the HS so it never happened? If we are comparing it to the Samarians that Philip was also involved with then are you saying the Eunuch was left in a state similar to the pre-laying on of hands of the Samarians? Does this not leave him ill equipt? One thing that is clear about the Eunuch account is the Spirit was in control, so are you saying the Spirit didn't want the Eunuch to have the baptism of the HS?

 

[mark kennedy]

I see the Ten Commandments as surface sins, whereas the Spirit goes deep to the root, so of course if you pull out the root, the whole plant dies. So if you never hate, you will never advance all the way to murder, etc.

The Holy Spirit gives us the new nature, the Law written on our hearts. I always like to go back yo the Upper Room, the whole world will know you are my disciples if you have love one for another. This goes on for three chapters, the coming of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'm confused? is Philip not an apostle too?

It is a different Phillip.

 

[devin553344]

this is starting to sound Mormon, like I'm the only one with authority here.