Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

[Dave L]

I received it through the heart and not via the logic.

Only scripture will do.

 

[rockytopva]

Only scripture will do.

In which I have given you.

 

[Dave L]

In which I have given you.

It doesn't apply.

 

[mark kennedy]

I gave the proof texts in the article.

Yea, only to abandon them beyond that. You've managed to equivocate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues and prophecy which is indefensible biblically. This is the Pentecostal error that ignores the inclusion of 'entire sanctification as well.. Entire sanctification, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit are actually identical ro Orthodox ''Theosis'. Wesleyan theology has always been heavily influenced by the Eastern Church Fathers. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as doctrine is derived from the Holiness Movement's interest in eastern mysticism.

Now there is nothing wrong with any of this unless you want to argue your core definition in circles. My problem here isn't the key principle, just the gross mishandling of an expression. Really little more then literary feature the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the equipping of believers for service via gifts of grace. There can be no question there are more the two, but you want to bury that false assumption while arguing it simultaniously. Your defense is to argue in circles around the definition instead of revisiting it and revising the wording.

A sound exposition of parts of Acts and 1 Corinthians would help, you just can't be bothered with either.

 

[Dave L]

Yea, only to abandon them beyond that. You've managed to equivocate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues and prophecy which is indefensible biblically. This is the Pentecostal error that ignores the inclusion of 'entire sanctification as well.. Entire sanctification, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit are actually identical ro Orthodox ''Theosis'. Wesleyan theology has always been heavily influenced by the Eastern Church Fathers. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as doctrine is derived from the Holiness Movement's interest in eastern mysticism.

Now there is nothing wrong with any of this unless you want to argue your core definition in circles. My provlem here isn't the key principle, just the gross mishandling of an expression. Really little more then literary feature the baptism of the Holy Spirit is nothing more then the equipping of believers for service via gifts of grace. There can be no question there are more the two, but you want to bury that false assumption while arguing it simultaniously. Your defense is to argue in circles around the definition instead of revisiting it and revising the wording.

A sound exposition of parts of Acts and 1 Corinthians would help, you just can't be bothered with either.

Today's "gifts" are not the originals. People who think they are cheat themselves out of understanding scripture that pertains to the gifts.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The prayer of faith still heals. But don't try to compare today's TV spectacles to the real gifts that came from the Apostle's hands.

Yikes! No way would I do that. I am guessing the "laying on of hands" is no longer useful either? This is how I see today's gift of healing being applied, not just one person with $$'s for eyes coupled with massive deception. I do understand your point though, the "gift of healing" is now through the power of prayer rather than the power of one person claiming the power to heal.
Blessings

 

[rockytopva]

Today's "gifts" are not the originals. People who think they are cheat themselves out of understanding scripture that pertains to the gifts.

So we can have .... a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. -2 Timothy 3:5

 

[Dave L]

So we can have .... a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. -2 Timothy 3:5

Even mimicking the gifts does not come close to the originals.

 

[Dave L]

Yikes! No way would I do that. I am guessing the "laying on of hands" is no longer useful either? This is how I see today's gift of healing being applied, not just one person with $$'s for eyes coupled with massive deception. I do understand your point though, the "gift of healing" is now through the power of prayer rather than the power of one person claiming the power to heal.
Blessings

Stick to scripture alone, and all will find its balance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Today's "gifts" are not the originals. People who think they are cheat themselves out of understanding scripture that pertains to the gifts.

Those gifts are discussed at length in 1 Cor. 12, I see no great difference in how most of the gifts are exercised today as compared to the 1st century. The early churches like the Corinthians were still experimenting a period of signs miracles and wonders. The Word as it goes out will be accompanied with miracles, that historically tappered off.

So lets see, you have absolutely no interest in the theological principles at work here, as well as the historical background. Which is cool if you can do any semblance of an exposition but nothing doing. Everything has went in circles till you have reduced it to pedantic one liners. I have a solution for that but I'll give you one more chance to respond substantively.

 

[Dave L]

Those gifts are discussed at length in 1 Cor. 12, I see no great difference in how most of the gifts are exercised. The early curches like the Corinthians were still experimenting a period of signs miracles and wonders. The Word as it goes out will be accompanied with miracles, that hiatorically tappered off.

So lets see, you have absolutely no interest in the theological principles at work here, as well as the historical background. Which is cool if you can do any semblance of an exposition but nothing doing. Everything has went in circles till you have reduced it to pedantic one liners. I have a solution for that but I'll give you one more chance to respond substantively.

They all came through Paul's or another apostle's hands.

 

[devin553344]

The Apostles imparted the baptism of the Holy Spirit through their hands. It ended when the last apostle died. We still have the prayer of faith the heals. And scripture which is the complete revelation where tongues and prophecy only gave partial revelation.

I don't believe in in your doctrine.

 

[Dave L]

I don't believe in in your doctrine.

You will if you go by scripture alone.

 

[mark kennedy]

They all came through Paul's or another apostle's hands.

Those gifts of grace, the lit. meaning of gifts, are manifest exclusively through the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul could bestow these kind gifts but the Apostles didn't distribute them, the Holy Spirit.

So yet another indefensible, pointless statement, that has nothing to do with the core topic. Welcome to my ignore list, I've had quite enough for this.

 

[Dave L]

Those gifts of grace, the lit. meaning of gifts, are manifest exclusively through the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul could bestow these kind gifts but the Apostles didn't distribute them, the Holy Spirit.

So yet another indefensible, pointless statement, that has nothing to do with the core topic. Welcome to my ignore list, I've had quite enough for this.

We have no proof from scripture the gifts came in any other way than through the 12 apostles' hands, or beyond the two outpourings. Paul told the Romans, “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;” Romans 1:11 (NASB95) It was not available otherwise.

“God also testifying with them [the Apostles], both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Hebrews 2:4 (NASB95)

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

It is JESUS who baptises people with his Holy Spirit.
Luke 3:16, John the Baptist said to the crowd, "He will baptise YOU with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Mark 16:17 says that these signs will follow those who believe .............. they will speak in new tongues."
Millions of people believe today, and thousands speak in new tongues.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean speaking in tongues.
Pentecost was a fulfilment of the prophecy given through Joel; "I will pour out my Spirit on all people", Joel 2:28. Ezekiel also prophesied that God would put his Spirit IN us, Ezekiel 37:14.
Baptise, I am told, means to immerse. If the Spirit is poured out on all, so much so that he is IN them, that sounds like baptism. It is God who pours out his Spirit on us, and fills us with his Spirit. And he still does this today - or none of us would be here.

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.

I think a quick trip to the Spirit filled/Charismatic forum may show you otherwise; not to mention all the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that are around.

And we can confidently say believers from Pentecost on have the gift of Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38,

I'm certainly not confident in telling God he cannot baptise people with his Spirit today.

 

[~Zao~]

So great a salvation that God would bear witness both by signs and wonders and manifold powers to set His seal on the preaching of the word. The existance of His church is His standing proof of His divine power. To neglect such a great salvation is to despise God Himself.

His bearing witness is by distributions of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. In signs, wonders and powers but especially by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. There is no fellowship with the Father but thru the Son and no fellowship with the Son and His salvation but with the Holy Spirit contained within. The Lord preached, the Father bore witness and the Holy Spirit comes in power to do the work.

The subject is the great salvation established in signs and wonders that none should neglect. The foundation is always Christ.

 

[Dave L]

It is JESUS who baptises people with his Holy Spirit.
Luke 3:16, John the Baptist said to the crowd, "He will baptise YOU with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Mark 16:17 says that these signs will follow those who believe .............. they will speak in new tongues."
Millions of people believe today, and thousands speak in new tongues.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean speaking in tongues.
Pentecost was a fulfilment of the prophecy given through Joel; "I will pour out my Spirit on all people", Joel 2:28. Ezekiel also prophesied that God would put his Spirit IN us, Ezekiel 37:14.
Baptise, I am told, means to immerse. If the Spirit is poured out on all, so much so that he is IN them, that sounds like baptism. It is God who pours out his Spirit on us, and fills us with his Spirit. And he still does this today - or none of us would be here.



I think a quick trip to the Spirit filled/Charismatic forum may show you otherwise; not to mention all the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that are around.



I'm certainly not confident in telling God he cannot baptise people with his Spirit today.

But, nowhere does it say he does this apart from the 12 Apostles or the two outpourings. This is the point than proves all other ideas about the Holy Spirit today are false doctrine.

 

[Monna]

Matthew 3
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 1
5 For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Strange coincidence that this and the previous thread focus on baptism, as I was earlier today suddenly struck by a thought on the subject that I don't think I've ever heard discussed.


John 4:1-3(KJV)
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

John the Baptist made it very clear that there was a mighty distinction between his own baptism (with water) and Jesus' baptism (with the Holy Spirit and fire). Several of John's disciples left John and followed Jesus (which apparently did not bother John - "He must increase but I must decrease."). John, in his gospel states categorically that Jesus Himself did not baptize (with water), "but his disciples." In Acts 1 Jesus takes up baptism again, and He also makes a clear distinction between between John's baptism "with water" and the baptism with the Holy Spirit which his hearers would soon experience.

So the question that arose in my mind concerns Matthew 28:19

Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,...​

Which baptism is Jesus refering to? Why would He send them out to practise John's (water) baptism, when this was NOT His baptism, and when very shortly before this command, He had told them they would be shortly baptised with the Holy Spirit ... and which is exactly was John said would be different about Jesus' baptism. Surely, He would send His followers out to baptize with HIS baptism, rather than cousin John's ...? (and once more noting John the Apostle's clear statement that Jesus Himself did not baptize with water.)

There have been few practices that have caused more disunity among believers than baptism. And I do not wish to pour gas on the continuously smouldering coals of this issue. Still, I put out this question because I have never heard or read any one raise this angle. (Of course, I am not the most widely read person around. )

There IS another baptism that Jesus Himself speaks of, and which I propose as more significant that most think, in the full context of the true meaning of baptism, and that is these passages ...

Luke 12:49-51
“I came to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to receive, and how distressed I am until it is over! Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world? No, not peace, but division.

Matthew 20:22-23
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Notice in Luke 12 the connection between baptism and fire, and recall John the baptist's words in Matt. 3 - above. Also note that Jesus speaks of a baptism He himself is "to receive," though He had already been baptised by John, and received the outward sign of the Holy Spirit at that time. Note also the words used. We generally think of (water) baptism as an act of obedience on our part: that is, it is something (at least if we are refering to adult baptism) we do/we request/we initiate and something to look forward to with joyful anticipation; (think of the Ethipian eunich who asked "it there any reason why I shouldn't be baptised?") Jesus in this passage uses the verb "receive" and He admits to being very distressed by it, until it's over. In Matthew Jesus makes the direct link between His cup, and His baptism, and obvious reference to his death. Given that we are to deny orselves, take up our crosses and follow him, baptism isn't simply a one-off ritual public confession of our identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. It is about our daily lives, our continous immersion in the Holy Spirit, so that "it is not me that lives, but Christ in me."

 

[~Zao~]

But, nowhere does it say he does this apart from the 12 Apostles or the two outpourings. This is the point than proves all other ideas about the Holy Spirit today are false doctrine.

You would have to prove that the 2 outpourings are not apart from the apostles. Your claiming different things but linking them irrevocably.