Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

[CharismaticLady]

This is taught no where in scripture.

So do you believe tongues was for writing scripture like Dave L does?

 

[Saint Steven]

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

So would you say that the scriptures below are much to do about nothing?
Since you claim it only applied to a few and for a limited time frame.

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:16
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

Mark 1:8
I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 1:33
And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 1:5
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

A lady in our church doing otherwise

really??? what language does she speak?

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

So do you believe tongues was for writing scripture like Dave L does?

12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

the signs accompanied the Apostolic preaching among those who believed.

 

[Saint Steven]

It occurred to me today that we have been too accepting of Dave's claim that there were TWO outpourings. There was only ONE.

The Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. What happened at the house of Cornelius was NOT a second outpouring. It was an extension of the ONLY outpouring.

There is no limiting of the Holy Spirit. There is only before Pentecost and after Pentecost. That one outpouring is still in effect today. (after Pentecost)

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

really??? what language does she speak?

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

 

[rockytopva]

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

If you don’t believe that was of God that is your business. I left that serviced blessed.

 

[topher694]

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

Making fun of and mocking people who love Jesus.
Yet another example of the "fruit" deniers produce.

 

[CharismaticLady]

12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

the signs accompanied the Apostolic preaching among those who believed.

I believe, don't you?

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Were just the apostles baptized? Were just the apostles saved? Is this promise just for them, or for all those who believe? If it was just for apostles, then I must be an apostle...

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

who said anything about the Pentecostal view? Let's take the biblical view, not superimpose a post-canon reverse translation view. Let's also keep denominational human elements out of it, we don't read the 1st letter to Paul from the Corinthians because clearly, that would have some flawed teachings. So why use misuse in the church today to claim the whole thing is false? Paul's correction to the Corinthians concluded with "do not forbid speaking in tongues" not "you're doing things the wrong way so clearly these gifts have stopped"

The Cornelius event tells us the Holy Spirit "came on all who heard the message" and this was affirmed because "they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." An apostle is present but he did not lay hands-on anyone, (because he was hesitant that the Holy Spirit was for gentiles). The Holy Spirit came upon non-apostle gentile believers who began to speak in tongues. So is the baptism of the Holy Spirit for the apostles and those who they lay hands on only? according to the Acts, no.

although a digressed practice in the early church tongues did continue beyond the reach of the hands of the apostles. For example, Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century is quoted "We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues."

we can talk about biblical practices and use that to correct what we observe today but the bible does not even implicitly discourage these practices so why is it a conversation?

 

[DamianWarS]

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

I agree edification is needed but if so your response is void of it. Do you care to re-phrase in a spirit of edification rather than insults?

 

[Strong in Him]

No one speaks in tongues today, nobody.
The rhyming noises are just foolish carnal sounds which are meaningless.

I've read books which tell of Christians speaking in tongues in a service and newcomers to the church recognising the language that was spoken and accepting the message from God. Or Christians in the congregation recognising the language of the tongue.
I doubt that God would call the gift that he gives, meaningless.

 

[Strong in Him]

ha lea halea halea, halea halea ...yes real edifying...the supposed interpretation was different words while the "tongues was a repetitive rhyming sound"
complete nonsense.

Publicly mocking God?
You're brave.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I've read books which tell of Christians speaking in tongues in a service and newcomers to the church recognising the language that was spoken and accepting the message from God. Or Christians in the congregation recognising the language of the tongue.
I doubt that God would call the gift that he gives, meaningless.

I would say that if someone understood the language spoken in tongues, that they were given the interpretation by God, not that the other person was speaking their language. That is how the gift of interpretation of tongues works. That happened to a girl in Arizona. While everyone else just heard tongues, she heard English and the message was to her from God. The same can explain how the devout Jews listening to the 120 speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, each heard their own language spoken by all of them (like a choir). Otherwise it would have been such a cacophony of sound that no one would be able to understand their own language out of the 119 other languages being spoken all at once. Don't forget 1 Corinthians had already been read in all the churches 15 years before the Acts of the Apostles was even written, so everyone in the Church already knew what all the gifts were and would have quickly discerned how the Jews "heard" their own language.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No one speaks in tongues today, nobody.
The rhyming noises are just foolish carnal sounds which are meaningless.

I would hazard a guess that you don't speak in tongues. You must first believe.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would say that if someone understood the language spoken in tongues, that they were given the interpretation by God, not that the other person was speaking their language.

All I know is that I've read that people have spoken in tongues in church services, and there have others present from the country where the language was spoken.
I don't see any reason why God can't give someone a tongue which is in fact another language, while they themselves have no knowledge of that language.

The same can explain how the devout Jews listening to the 120 speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, each heard their own language spoken by all of them (like a choir).

It could, but there is nothing to say that Peter wasn't given a language that he had never learnt, while it was recognised by someone else as a known language.

Don't forget 1 Corinthians had already been read in all the churches 15 years before the Acts of the Apostles was even written,

It doesn't matter when the events were written down, Pentecost took place 50 days after the resurrection, 53 days after Jesus' crucifixion. That was probably around 33 A.D - before Paul was even converted, years before he founded the church in Corinth.

 

[CharismaticLady]

All I know is that I've read that people have spoken in tongues in church services, and there have others present from the country where the language was spoken.
I don't see any reason why God can't give someone a tongue which is in fact another language, while they themselves have no knowledge of that language.

The reason they understand is because they were to give the interpretation, or to confirm it if someone else got the interpretation. I have to believe the Word of God, and 1 Corinthians 14:2 says "no man understands." And the gift of interpretation of tongues is to understand the tongue "no man understands." I don't argue with God and His Word.

It could, but there is nothing to say that Peter wasn't given a language that he had never learnt, while it was recognised by someone else as a known language.

Peter? Not sure when that was you are talking about.

It doesn't matter when the events were written down, Pentecost took place 50 days after the resurrection, 53 days after Jesus' crucifixion. That was probably around 33 A.D - before Paul was even converted, years before he founded the church in Corinth.

Acts of the Apostles was written in 62 A.D. long after the Day of Pentecost. I'm talking about you and I reading it today when Acts 2 doesn't even mention the gift of interpretation; it just describes it. And for those in 62 AD they would know it was describing the gift of interpretation of tongues. Do you understand what I'm saying? Don't know if I'm clear or not.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I believe, don't you?

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Were just the apostles baptized? Were just the apostles saved? Is this promise just for them, or for all those who believe? If it was just for apostles, then I must be an apostle...

You were not there to hear the Apostles were you?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

If you don’t believe that was of God that is your business. I left that serviced blessed.

Some believe they are blessed praying a rosary bead. Truth matters.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Making fun of and mocking people who love Jesus.
Yet another example of the "fruit" deniers produce.

There was no mocking. There was an accurate description of what took place. Rhyming repetitive noise, not a language, not a message from God. A falsehood, a lie.