Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

[Strong in Him]

All believers have the Holy Spirit. Those who lead holy lives have the fullness of the Spirit. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts helped launch NT Christianity. But being incomplete and fragmentary, scripture replaced them giving the full revelation when finally completed in the Book of Revelation.

There is no Scripture for this, and very few Christians today believe or teach it.
Scripture wasn't "completed" with the book of Revelation. It wasn't that people were going along saying, "Jude ... yes, that can be the 26th book of the NT; we only need one more now and it's complete."
All the books of the NT were written by about 100 AD - the Bible was not compiled, and the books put in some kind of order, until about 300 AD.

Are you saying that teaching, preaching, evangelism, helping others, serving, administration, giving etc - all listed as gifts of the Spirit - have ceased? How do you think the Gospel gets proclaimed, then, and the church built up?
Or are you saying that if you go go teach others that ability to teach is just a natural talent, one which you use with the Spirit's help, and it is just a coincidence that it's also listed as a gift of the Spirit?

 

[Dave L]

There is no Scripture for this, and very few Christians today believe or teach it.
Scripture wasn't "completed" with the book of Revelation. It wasn't that people were going along saying, "Jude ... yes, that can be the 26th book of the NT; we only need one more now and it's complete."
All the books of the NT were written by about 100 AD - the Bible was not compiled, and the books put in some kind of order, until about 300 AD.

Are you saying that teaching, preaching, evangelism, helping others, serving, administration, giving etc - all listed as gifts of the Spirit - have ceased? How do you think the Gospel gets proclaimed, then, and the church built up?
Or are you saying that if you go go teach others that ability to teach is just a natural talent, one which you use with the Spirit's help, and it is just a coincidence that it's also listed as a gift of the Spirit?

It's all in plain sight had you not been taught to find Wm. Seymour's private interpretation in Acts.

 

[Strong in Him]

The 12th had been chosen by time Pentecost. Earlier I said the 12 (one pending). Perhaps you missed this.

Yes, but earlier you asked me to whom Jesus said the words "wait until you have received the Holy Spirit." That was only 11 disciples. Matthias was not one of them - and Paul certainly wasn't. While we don't know what happened to Matthias, we do know that Paul received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Jesus told his remaining 11 disciples to wait until the Spirit came upon them. By the time of Pentecost, there were 12 Apostles again - yet they were all filled and spoke in tongues. Later, Paul received the Spirit and spoke in tongues too.

 

[Dave L]

Yes, but earlier you asked me to whom Jesus said the words "wait until you have received the Holy Spirit." That was only 11 disciples. Matthias was not one of them - and Paul certainly wasn't. While we don't know what happened to Matthias, we do know that Paul received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Jesus told his remaining 11 disciples to wait until the Spirit came upon them. By the time of Pentecost, there were 12 Apostles again - yet they were all filled and spoke in tongues. Later, Paul received the Spirit and spoke in tongues too.

Let's focus on the issue, not nitpicking.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's all in plain sight had you not been taught to find Wm. Seymour's private interpretation in Acts.

I've no idea who WM Seymour is/was.
What I wrote before are the facts. Revelation was not written as a final document to complete the Bible - it was later decided to compile a Bible and make Revelation the final book, since it speaks of end times and God's rule.
Nowhere does the Bible say "when men have compiled a book containing all the teachings and revelations from God, then there will be no need for the gifts of the Spirit."

Like I said, how do you live your Christian life without them?

 

[Dave L]

I've no idea who WM Seymour is/was.
What I wrote before are the facts. Revelation was not written as a final document to complete the Bible - it was later decided to compile a Bible and make Revelation the final book, since it speaks of end times and God's rule.
Nowhere does the Bible say "when men have compiled a book containing all the teachings and revelations from God, then there will be no need for the gifts of the Spirit."

Like I said, how do you live your Christian life without them?

He created Pentecostalism;
According to Curtis Edwards, Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery, Voodoo was the religion of African slaves. And even before slavery they would voodoo any religion they took part in. They had voodoo Catholicism for the main part.

The after coming to Haitian and American shores, they voodooed what ever religion they encountered. Voodoo Methodism and voodoo Baptist churches, were common in Louisiana.

Wm. Seymour tried to voodoo the Church of God (Anderson) but got expelled.Shortly thereafter, he voodooed his Wesley Methodism at Azusa street in Los Angeles. He thought voodoo tongues were the same as Bible tongues. This became the Assemblies of God denomination with the Oneness United Pentecostal Church splitting off from them over their antitrinitarian views.

Curtis Edwards

Edwards, Curtis. Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery . Kindle Edition.

Also Speaking in Tongues: Glossalalia and Stress Reduction

 

[Strong in Him]

Let's focus on the issue, not nitpicking.

No, you were the one who said these things, and you should be able to give reason, and Scripture, for them.
In one post you referred to the 12, then you specifically asked me to how many people did Jesus say "wait until you have received the Holy Spirit." If your position is that only the 12 were filled, that includes Matthias. If it is that only those who Jesus told to wait were filled, that excludes Matthias. It also excludes Paul, who was filled and spoke in tongues.

 

[Dave L]

No, you were the one who said these things, and you should be able to give reason, and Scripture, for them.
In one post you referred to the 12, then you specifically asked me to how many people did Jesus say "wait until you have received the Holy Spirit." If your position is that only the 12 were filled, that includes Matthias. If it is that only those who Jesus told to wait were filled, that excludes Matthias. It also excludes Paul, who was filled and spoke in tongues.

You think you have a major issue, but I've said numerous times "the 12 (one pending)". The 12 are a distinct group. Known by that name.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Apostles and those they laid their hands on received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told the 12 only;

“...... that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Acts 1:4–5 (KJV 1900)

This is conjecture on your part.

Are you claiming that the Samarians received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the Apostle's hands, but those who were water baptized at Pentecost did not receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? If so, why the Samarians and not the others?

It is obvious in the passage that they expected that the Samarians would have received the Spirit (the Baptism with) when they were water baptized, like those present at Pentecost. What evidence was there that this did not happen? (no tongues)

 

[Dave L]

This is conjecture on your part.

Are you claiming that the Samarians received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the Apostle's hands, but those who were water baptized at Pentecost did not receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? If so, why the Samarians and not the others?

It is obvious in the passage that they expected that the Samarians would have received the Spirit (the Baptism with) when they were water baptized, like those present at Pentecost. What evidence was there that this did not happen? (no tongues)

From the OP;
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.

 

[Strong in Him]

He created Pentecostalism;
According to Curtis Edwards, Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery, Voodoo was the religion of African slaves. And even before slavery they would voodoo any religion they took part in. They had voodoo Catholicism for the main part.

The after coming to Haitian and American shores, they voodooed what ever religion they encountered. Voodoo Methodism and voodoo Baptist churches, were common in Louisiana.

Wm. Seymour tried to voodoo the Church of God (Anderson) but got expelled.Shortly thereafter, he voodooed his Wesley Methodism at Azusa street in Los Angeles. He thought voodoo tongues were the same as Bible tongues. This became the Assemblies of God denomination with the Oneness United Pentecostal Church splitting off from them over their antitrinitarian views.

Curtis Edwards

Edwards, Curtis. Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery . Kindle Edition.

Also Speaking in Tongues: Glossalalia and Stress Reduction

Sorry, but that's not Scripture, and I'm not a Pentecostal, so it doesn't really interest me.

 

[Saint Steven]

From the OP;
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.

More conjecture.
This assumes the Apostles (capital A) individually baptized 8000 converts. And that those converts got the Baptism with the Holy Spirit "accidentally" through hand contact.
And that the Eunuch did not receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, because the text doesn't specifically say so. On that basis you should claim that no one did ever receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Is there even one text that verifies this? For anyone?

What was the evidence that the Samarians had NOT received the Holy Spirit when they were water baptized?

 

[Strong in Him]

You think you have a major issue, but I've said numerous times "the 12 (one pending)". The 12 are a distinct group. Known by that name.

There were still only 11 of them at the time that Jesus said it.

 

[Saint Steven]

There were still only 11 of them at the time that Jesus said it.

Right. And at least 14 languages represented at the Pentecost outpouring.

 

[Dave L]

There were still only 11 of them at the time that Jesus said it.

Are we straining out gnats and swallowing camels here?

 

[Dave L]

More conjecture.
This assumes the Apostles (capital A) individually baptized 8000 converts. And that those converts got the Baptism with the Holy Spirit "accidentally" through hand contact.
And that the Eunuch did not receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, because the text doesn't specifically say so. On that basis you should claim that no one did ever receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Is there even one text that verifies this? For anyone?

What was the evidence that the Samarians had NOT received the Holy Spirit when they were water baptized?

No. It means only those whom they baptized might have received the Baptism too.

 

[Dave L]

Sorry, but that's not Scripture, and I'm not a Pentecostal, so it doesn't really interest me.

But are you teaching false doctrine in his behalf?

 

[topher694]

You guys, he's intentionally playing with you.

 

[DamianWarS]

If scripture does not support your position, you need to abandon it and go only by what scripture says.

you realize the same can be said about you. why do you refuse to dialogue about these things and prefer to ignore them with answers like "you don't understand scripture" can I not accuse you of the same? There is obviously disagreement wide enough in Christian circles that warrant more thought out responses other than "you don't understand".

You also realize that nowhere in the bible does it say the baptism Holy Spirit must be given by an apostle laying on of hands. Your position is through inference and you need to sort out the difference of what the bible says and what you infer rather than demanding them to be the same.

I'm expecting your response to be something like "of course if you understood scripture this wouldn't be a problem" because there comes a point for some reason you decided to check out and responses get vaguer until they just turn into "you don't understand" This isn't good enough nor does it show respect to other and if you truly accept a position you need to show you can support it at every angle rather than pick easy targets and sweep the others under a first-century rug. You have already posted in the controversy section implicitly accepting your position is controversial but yet don't want to get into any depth. Perhaps you misunderstand this sort of forum-based dialogue?

 

[Dave L]

you realize the same can be said about you. why do you refuse to dialogue about these things and prefer to ignore them with answers like "you don't understand scripture" can I not accuse you of the same? There is obviously disagreement wide enough in Christian circles that warrant more thought out responses other than "you don't understand".

You also realize that nowhere in the bible does it say the baptism Holy Spirit must be given by an apostle laying on of hands. Your position is through inference and you need to sort out the difference of what the bible says and what you infer rather than demanding them to be the same.

I'm expecting your response to be something like "of course if you understood scripture this wouldn't be a problem" because there comes a point for some reason you decided to check out and responses get vaguer until they just turn into "you don't understand" This isn't good enough nor does it show respect to other and if you truly accept a position you need to show you can support it at every angle rather than pick easy targets and sweep the others under a first-century rug. You have already posted in the controversy section implicitly accepting your position is controversial but yet don't want to get into any depth. Perhaps you misunderstand this sort of forum-based dialogue?

Please notice, scripture does not support the Pentecostal view. You must add to scripture to support it. Scripture supports my view having no other means of distribution for the Baptism besides the two outpourings or through an apostle's hands.