Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

[Dave L]

I would teach this....

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. - Colossians 3:1-2

I would imagine all gifts given from on high unique to the believer. If it is a gift of tongues it will be a unique tongue. If it is a gift of speaking it will be a unique message. The uniqueness is what makes it interesting to look into...

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. - 1 Peter 1:12

So many today are going after Masters and Doctorate degrees in religion these days. But if the Spirit of Christ is not speaking through the message it is as boring, dry, and uninteresting of topics as one can endure. The video below is a sister in our church bringing a message in tongues to the church,and it was a unique word! It would have been even more edifying had someone brought an interpretation to the message.

You need to prove the OP wrong using scripture alone. Don't hijack my post to spread your brand of religion.

 

[Dave L]

Yes; you keep mentioning these and tell us what you think they mean.
It does not in any way prove that believers today cannot be baptised in the Holy Spirit.

If you look further, besides the two outpourings the baptism only came through an Apostle's hands. You need to prove it didn't by showing other examples in scripture. Until then you are adding to scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

Read it carefully and note two entirely different gatherings, days apart are mentioned in the context.

Where?
Acts 2:1-11 describes Pentecost; verse 12 starts "Then Peter stood up ...." Not, "then they went home to think about it and 2 days later Peter stood up ..."

What I'm saying is there is no indication that the ALL of Acts of the Apostles 2:1 actually means only all the 12. When they were selecting a replacement for Judas it was clearly done with all the believers present. Chapter 2 says that when the day of Pentecost came, they were ALL gathered in one place. It could easily have said "all the 12" or "all 11 disciples who Jesus had chosen, plus Matthias". It doesn't; it says "ALL".

 

[Dave L]

Where?
Acts 2:1-11 describes Pentecost; verse 12 starts "Then Peter stood up ...." Not, "then they went home to think about it and 2 days later Peter stood up ..."

What I'm saying is there is no indication that the ALL of Acts of the Apostles 2:1 actually means only all the 12. When they were selecting a replacement for Judas it was clearly done with all the believers present. Chapter 2 says that when the day of Pentecost came, they were ALL gathered in one place. It could easily have said "all the 12" or "all 11 disciples who Jesus had chosen, plus Matthias". It doesn't; it says "ALL".

Who did Jesus tell to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power from God?

 

[DamianWarS]

It was only the 12 Apostles present. Read more carefully.

Did the 120 not have faith? Did they have the HS? Read more carefully.

 

[Dave L]

Did the 120 not have faith? Did they have the HS? Read more carefully.

The Baptism was for the Apostles. The gift of the Holy Spirit was for believers. But the Apostles gave the baptism to some believers who could not pass it on.

 

[rockytopva]

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve. - Acts 19:1-7

 

[DamianWarS]

The Baptism was for the Apostles. The gift of the Holy Spirit was for believers. But the Apostles gave the baptism to some believers who could not pass it on.

your just circling. The eunuch, according to you, has whatever the samaritans has pre laying of hands. You say this was the fullness of the HS but the text says they had yet to receive the HS. You tell me Luke meant something else and I don't understand it. You're going to have to unpack this more because you're leaving large gaps and pretending they don't matter.

 

[DamianWarS]

So scripture is not perfect?

Scripture is unfulfilled. It can only be abstractly perfect but not measurably perfect until it is fulfilled.

On the flip side are you in-part or has that passed away?

 

[1213]

But it ended with the Apostles. ..

Sorry, I don’t see any Biblical reason to believe that. And I feel the promise is true and if one asks Holy spirit, he can have that. And in this case, I think it is good to understand, Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

 

[LoveofTruth]

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.

First of all, there are many baptisms in scripture. And only one baptism is saving. The saving one baptism is being baptized into Christ by the Spirit. This is not the baptism with the Holy Ghost or the baptism of water under the old covenant and diverse washings (Hebrews 9).

Every believer needs this one baptism but not all may have the baptism with the Holy Ghost for power in ministry and witness etc.

The baptism with the Holy Ghost is for all believers into the ends of the Earth. We see various ways the Holy Ghost baptism came. Some were just sitting in the upper room, non preaching or laying on of hands. Others heard Peter preaching words and they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Others had men lay hands on them to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. But in all cases it is Jesus who baptises with the Holy Ghost.

He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

But to have this baptism from Jesus with the Holy Ghost a person must first have Jesus Christ in them being baptized into Jesus Christ. Then He will baptize them.

Also you said

“. Paul said tongues and prophecy provided only partial knowledge 1 Corinthians 13:9. So it makes sense scripture replaced them when completed”

This is chief error many make here. This is not talking about the scriptures to come as that which is perfect. For they already had Holy scripture which is able to make them perfect unto every good work 2 Timothy 3:15,16,17.Timothy has these from a child. And all believers had God working directly in them to make them “perfect” unto every good work (Hebrews 13:20,21). They also had the apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints. And they had been given already all things that pertain to life and godliness. So why try to make them seem as if they could not have been made perfect then and only some future people could be?? This is a grand error.

Also the meaning of that which is perfect section is paralleled by Paul again here,

“ Philippians 3:10. That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;11. If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.12. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus...15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”

And that expression

“I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus”

Is similar to the one in Corinthians where it says

“ 1 Corinthians 13:12. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Speaking of the resurrection and seeing Christ face to face and in a glorified body.

The words “apprehend” and “know” are similar in meaning in Greek

Know-“a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand”

And

Apprehend-“from 2596 and 2983; to take eagerly, i.e. seize, possess, etc. (literally or figuratively):--apprehend, attain, come upon, comprehend, find, obtain, perceive, (over-)take.

 

[Dave L]

Sorry, I don’t see any Biblical reason to believe that. And I feel the promise is true and if one asks Holy spirit, he can have that. And in this case, I think it is good to understand, Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

You are confusing the indwelling and fullness of the Spirit with the Baptism. They are not the same.

 

[Dave L]

Scripture is unfulfilled. It can only be abstractly perfect but not measurably perfect until it is fulfilled.

On the flip side are you in-part or has that passed away?

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.

 

[Dave L]

your just circling. The eunuch, according to you, has whatever the samaritans has pre laying of hands. You say this was the fullness of the HS but the text says they had yet to receive the HS. You tell me Luke meant something else and I don't understand it. You're going to have to unpack this more because you're leaving large gaps and pretending they don't matter.

You need to understand the differences in the outpouring before you can draw any conclusions about it.

 

[Dave L]

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve. - Acts 19:1-7

What is your point?

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Was Paul inclusive his own words and words yet to be written when he said scripture thoroughly equips us? Or are you saying this was prophetic and not meant for Timothy?

When you say it make sense scripture replaced this is this from your 1 Tim conclusion? Or is there some other lost scripture that tells is about this event? Wouldn't it be more responsible to pair 1 Cor 13:10 with an event scripture actually affirms?

 

[DamianWarS]

You need to understand the differences in the outpouring before you can draw any conclusions about it.

You need to understand the differences in the outpouring before you can draw any conclusions about it.

See I can say that too.

Try less platitudes and more depth

 

[Dave L]

Was Paul inclusive his own words and words yet to be written when he said scripture thoroughly equips us? Or are you saying this was prophetic and not meant for Timothy?

When you say it make sense scripture replaced this is this from your 1 Tim conclusion? Or is there some other lost scripture that tells is about this event? Wouldn't it be more responsible to pair 1 Cor 13:10 with an event scripture actually affirms?

????

 

[Dave L]

You need to understand the differences in the outpouring before you can draw any conclusions about it.

See I can say that too.

Try less platitudes and more depth

You need to produce scripture. Unless you do, you are adding to scripture.

 

[Johan_1988]

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” Galatians 5:22 (KJV 1900)

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,” Galatians 5:22 (NASB95)

Ok got that one wrong ,faith is a fruit then yes since it is the Holy Spirit that gives you the faith to be born again. Now there is a difference between the fruit and the manifestation. Any believer can manifest the fruit since the are born of the Spirit.

These are the manifestations of the Holy Spirit:

1Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Cor 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Cor 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1Cor 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1Cor 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Cor 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Cor 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1Cor 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.