Are Holy Spirit baptisms claims provable?
- Thread starter DJ2
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
let's see.....
noose is not a Christian
kavik is not a Christian
they like this post
"Many outside the church falsely mock Christianity"
uh huh
Perhaps you could be so kind as to indicate where I am ‘mocking Christianity’ – you may want to re-read my responses to your previous post.
It’s rather cliché to say perhaps, but you would do well to keep in mind that there are many paths to the Light; yours is certainly not the only one, nor is it any better than any other.
It strikes me as a bit odd in a way how quickly some (understand that this does not pertain to all) Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians become extremely defensive and, I dare say, almost hostile the minute someone dare suggests any view of a Biblical subject that radically opposes their own. In some cases, it begs the question of just how familiar are these folks with the history of their own church with respect to these subjects?
True, some of my views on Biblical subjects are quite different than what you are used to and, perhaps even a bit shocking as they may completely contradict what you’ve been taught or have come to believe, but that does not make them any less valid.
Though I may not follow the same path to the Light and share your views, I am not ignorant of them; nor do I assume to mock them. But understand that I may offer alternative views for thought and consideration that are just as valid.
noose is not a Christian
kavik is not a Christian
they like this post
"Many outside the church falsely mock Christianity"
uh huh
Perhaps you could be so kind as to indicate where I am ‘mocking Christianity’ – you may want to re-read my responses to your previous post.
It’s rather cliché to say perhaps, but you would do well to keep in mind that there are many paths to the Light; yours is certainly not the only one, nor is it any better than any other.
It strikes me as a bit odd in a way how quickly some (understand that this does not pertain to all) Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians become extremely defensive and, I dare say, almost hostile the minute someone dare suggests any view of a Biblical subject that radically opposes their own. In some cases, it begs the question of just how familiar are these folks with the history of their own church with respect to these subjects?
True, some of my views on Biblical subjects are quite different than what you are used to and, perhaps even a bit shocking as they may completely contradict what you’ve been taught or have come to believe, but that does not make them any less valid.
Though I may not follow the same path to the Light and share your views, I am not ignorant of them; nor do I assume to mock them. But understand that I may offer alternative views for thought and consideration that are just as valid.
Last edited:
Waggles -
“Why do true believers speak forth in tongues when baptized in
the Holy Spirit ? So all can be of one accord.”
How did you ever arrive at this conclusion?
You’re completely changing the meaning and contextual reference of this particular text.
This phrase is a reference to the twelve apostles in Acts (it also speaks to the question of whether it was 12 or 120 who spoke to the crowds at Pentecost) – I’m digressing here a bit, but….Chapter one ends with the newly formed 12 apostles, i.e. the addition of Matthias to replace Judas. Chapter 2 begins with saying "...they were all with one accord in one place..." It's assumed that the "they" here refers to the 120, but the context goes back to the end of Chapter 1 and refers specifically to the 12. Jesus' command in Chapter 1 concerning this event was to the apostles, not the 120. There is other contextual "evidence" in Chapter 2 as well which supports that it was just the twelve, not the 120.
In any event, the phrase "all with one accord" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘tongues’.
“Why do true believers speak forth in tongues when baptized in
the Holy Spirit ? So all can be of one accord.”
How did you ever arrive at this conclusion?
You’re completely changing the meaning and contextual reference of this particular text.
This phrase is a reference to the twelve apostles in Acts (it also speaks to the question of whether it was 12 or 120 who spoke to the crowds at Pentecost) – I’m digressing here a bit, but….Chapter one ends with the newly formed 12 apostles, i.e. the addition of Matthias to replace Judas. Chapter 2 begins with saying "...they were all with one accord in one place..." It's assumed that the "they" here refers to the 120, but the context goes back to the end of Chapter 1 and refers specifically to the 12. Jesus' command in Chapter 1 concerning this event was to the apostles, not the 120. There is other contextual "evidence" in Chapter 2 as well which supports that it was just the twelve, not the 120.
In any event, the phrase "all with one accord" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘tongues’.
Excuse me how can a non-Christian comment on things Spiritual
both outside your understanding and experience?
You don't believe in any of this.
You certainly do not know of it; unless you have become a backslider,
and turned away from your previous Christian faith.
Get yourself believing the scriptures
then repentance that leads to your conversion
water baptism by full immersion confessing your faith
receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence
of speaking in a new tongue (a God given spiritual language
for your prayer life)
be led of the Spirit into truth and the power to overcome
lay hands on the sick and pray over them for healings
enjoy many other miracles, healings and blessings
bear fruit of the Holy Spirit in your walk with and in the
Lord Jesus.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:4
as in my church all speak or rather pray in tongues
both outside your understanding and experience?
You don't believe in any of this.
You certainly do not know of it; unless you have become a backslider,
and turned away from your previous Christian faith.
Get yourself believing the scriptures
then repentance that leads to your conversion
water baptism by full immersion confessing your faith
receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence
of speaking in a new tongue (a God given spiritual language
for your prayer life)
be led of the Spirit into truth and the power to overcome
lay hands on the sick and pray over them for healings
enjoy many other miracles, healings and blessings
bear fruit of the Holy Spirit in your walk with and in the
Lord Jesus.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:4
as in my church all speak or rather pray in tongues
He is simply commenting on the text itself, nothing more. It is people like you who assume you have some kind of esoteric understanding that others can not fathom that are being misled. The God of the Bible is not a god of confusion, He is a god of reason. Following your train of thought leads to a "whatever my spirit leads me" attitude. I reject this notion completely.
Jesus referred both believers and non-believers to the same scriptures. A spirit filled Christian will believe and accept these scriptures as God inspired while a non-Christian will not. Nevertheless the verbiage stays the same.
Jesus referred both believers and non-believers to the same scriptures. A spirit filled Christian will believe and accept these scriptures as God inspired while a non-Christian will not. Nevertheless the verbiage stays the same.
'Other tongues' means other real languages that are not their own mother tongues. This was the power they were given so that they preach the gospel of the kingdom to all nations- meaning, they'll speak and people from different nationalities in that congregation would understand in their own dialect and also when they went far from Israel (let's say India), they would speak to them in their own language. Speaking in tongues has to have a purpose.
I have said here before and i will repeat, if you have the habit of speaking meaningless words that always starts with a B and ends with an O that you or anybody else has no clue as to what they mean, you surely are demon possessed.
Your church is a scary place to be.
Last edited:
Here is an interesting "fact" about speaking in tongues.
The gift of tongues will cdease! Do you know why and how?
Come the Kingdom, according to Zephaniah, who received thisinformation directly fro our Father,
there will be a pure language given to all so that all will call upon Yahweh
with one name (calling.)
In short, there will be no other tongues...ergo, no need; but keep in mind also that that moment has not yet
arrived.
Praise God, Who is Perfect.
The gift of tongues will cdease! Do you know why and how?
Come the Kingdom, according to Zephaniah, who received thisinformation directly fro our Father,
there will be a pure language given to all so that all will call upon Yahweh
with one name (calling.)
In short, there will be no other tongues...ergo, no need; but keep in mind also that that moment has not yet
arrived.
Praise God, Who is Perfect.
@Waggles
See post 122
With due respect, you should really get away from using the term “Christian” with such a narrow definition – i.e. specifically limited to only those who share your exact beliefs. The word refers to a considerably broader spectrum of people.
Again, the “all” at the beginning of Acts 2 refers back specifically to the twelve apostles referenced at the end of Acts 1.
There’s nothing spiritual about this reference; as DJ12 has pointed out, it’s the text – in this case, just plain old simple literary context. Twelve, not 120.
@JaumeJ
You’re sort of close to one of my points – because of the nature of how modern tongues are produced, no two speakers will ever have the same “tongue”. In other words, there are as many “tongues” as there are speakers of “tongues”.
If indeed “tongues” are a heavenly language, why would there ever be need for more than just one? Certainly, the historical, geographical, and cultural reasons there are multiple real languages on planet earth are not mirrored in the spiritual realm?
As you assert, ‘one’ language for all; not one language to each speaker.
See post 122
With due respect, you should really get away from using the term “Christian” with such a narrow definition – i.e. specifically limited to only those who share your exact beliefs. The word refers to a considerably broader spectrum of people.
Again, the “all” at the beginning of Acts 2 refers back specifically to the twelve apostles referenced at the end of Acts 1.
There’s nothing spiritual about this reference; as DJ12 has pointed out, it’s the text – in this case, just plain old simple literary context. Twelve, not 120.
@JaumeJ
You’re sort of close to one of my points – because of the nature of how modern tongues are produced, no two speakers will ever have the same “tongue”. In other words, there are as many “tongues” as there are speakers of “tongues”.
If indeed “tongues” are a heavenly language, why would there ever be need for more than just one? Certainly, the historical, geographical, and cultural reasons there are multiple real languages on planet earth are not mirrored in the spiritual realm?
As you assert, ‘one’ language for all; not one language to each speaker.
Very interesting question. Is the Word of God true or not? Is Jesus the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit or not?
as it States He is in :
Matt 1: 8
“I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
and
Matt 3:11
“I indeed baptize you with water unto 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.
and
Luke 3:16
John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
and John 1:3
“I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
Our Lord is or is not the Baptizer in the Holy Ghost? HE is ! that is what the word of God states, repeatedly as a normative 4 ti9mes in all Gospels. Now the question is HE still doing this today ? Of course HE is. Jesus after He rose from the dead told the disciples to go and wait until you have received the Holy Spirit
Acts 1:8 before this
in the Gospel of
John 20:22 "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is The Baptizer in the Holy Spirit as the word says so period. "The personal claim " one speaks about is made from the position of doubt . The Confession of a saved person is not a personal claim but a testimony and witness to WHAT Jesus said HE would do. Jesus did it or not, if HE did not then HE lied and that did not happen.
Yes Jesus is Lord and still The Baptizer in the Holy Spirit listen to the words of Jesus in Luke 11:3
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
You saved you have the Holy Spirit , you want more of God ask HIM ask Jesus to Baptize you in the Holy Spirit. if Nothing happens and you confess Jesus as Lord then know by faith HE has already done it.
37 And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood
and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink.
38 He that believeth in me, as the scripture says: Out of his belly
shall flow rivers of living water.
39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who
believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I
go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:7
and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink.
38 He that believeth in me, as the scripture says: Out of his belly
shall flow rivers of living water.
39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who
believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I
go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:7
No, the question was:
You spent most of your words answering questions not even asked.
Do your really believe those who make personal claims of Holy Spirit baptism are making them from a position of doubt?
As I write this I realize I should stop, since I really cannot make out what you are saying. Your writing seems rather idiosyncratic to me. Sorry.
Do your really believe those who make personal claims of Holy Spirit baptism are making them from a position of doubt?
As I write this I realize I should stop, since I really cannot make out what you are saying. Your writing seems rather idiosyncratic to me. Sorry.
There was no question ? really ok then explain to me why this is in the form of a Question?
[h=1]" Are Holy Spirit baptisms claims provable?"[/h]
That sure looks like a question to me.
"Can any of us prove or disprove personal/individual claims of Holy Spirit baptisms?"
That looks like one too.
What I find intersting is the idea that the question you aked was "can any of us prove or disprove "
I choose to answer title & your question from the position of Who Jesus is said to be . The Baptizer in the Holy Spirit. The idea one can disprove personal or indivduals claims of Holy Spirit Baptisim , is a very open question would you not agree?
If the question was were in the Word of God is an example of one being Baptized in the Holy Spirit then see how one who claims to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit are a like. That was not what was asked. you nor I can prove or dis prove anything without the Word of God. That is the point I was making. You do not save anyone and you do not unsave anyone as I do not either.
"Your writing seems rather idiosyncratic to me. Sorry." and so does yours .
[h=1]" Are Holy Spirit baptisms claims provable?"[/h]
That sure looks like a question to me.
"Can any of us prove or disprove personal/individual claims of Holy Spirit baptisms?"
That looks like one too.
What I find intersting is the idea that the question you aked was "can any of us prove or disprove "
I choose to answer title & your question from the position of Who Jesus is said to be . The Baptizer in the Holy Spirit. The idea one can disprove personal or indivduals claims of Holy Spirit Baptisim , is a very open question would you not agree?
If the question was were in the Word of God is an example of one being Baptized in the Holy Spirit then see how one who claims to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit are a like. That was not what was asked. you nor I can prove or dis prove anything without the Word of God. That is the point I was making. You do not save anyone and you do not unsave anyone as I do not either.
"Your writing seems rather idiosyncratic to me. Sorry." and so does yours .
This response is a great example of how hard it is for me to reply to your comments. In your opening sentence you state:
Where did I make such a statement? Please point out where I said or implied "there was no question". Maybe it is me but I cannot seem to grasp your point. Maybe if you could show me what I wrote that would make you respond with your "there was no question?" statement.
Remember the OP is simply two questions, why would I say "there is no question"?
Remember the OP is simply two questions, why would I say "there is no question"?
I will say also you did over look the 6 chapters too from Matt, Luke, John and Acts to suggest my writing is idiosyncratic . over 80% was not even my words 