Why the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for Today

1 Corinthians 12
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

1 Corinthians 14
14 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

1 Timothy 4
14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. (so not just the apostles as you allude to)

This has generated lots of interest so I am posting my understanding of the issue. (I used to be Pentecostal).

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 2:38 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.

But here's what you must prove, to validate your interpretation. Using scripture. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit came in another way besides the two outpourings, or in another way besides an apostle's hands. Scripture confirms this but it mentions no other way.

Matthew 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.

Who was speaking here: John the baptist
Was he speaking to the disciples/apostles: NO
Who was he speaking to specifically: The Pharisees and Sadduccees
Who was he REALLY speaking to: Israel and all who would believe in Christ Jesus
Who does the baptising: Jesus

Luke 3
15 Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, 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. 17 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Enough evidence?

This is bad hermenuetics. I could use the same reasoning and say that only Jesus and the apostles ate fish. I can show a passage from john that shows them eating fish, and then say that proves that no one else in the world ate fish and that you never ate fish either. I could ignore any other references to fish in the Bible or the fact that Jews could eat some of them, the feeding of the 4000 and 5000, and the fact that some of the disciples made a living as fishermen. That frozen fish I had last night must have been fake.

But this is illogical and irrational, as is your line of reasoning, which I addressed in another thread.

Who did John the Baptist speak preach to about being baptized with the Holy Spirit?
Matthew 3
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

And later in the same passage:
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

This preaching was not limited to the twelve apostles, and many of them might not have been there when John spoke these words. John was speaking to large numbers of Jewish people.

Here are the words of Christ in reference to this in Acts 1,
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Then in Acts 2, after the disciples were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Here we see the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days is for 'all flesh', and 'your' young men, daughters, young men, and old men. So it is for all flesh with some particular promises for the Israelites.

But Peter further clarifies that the Holy Spirit is for all who are 'afar off' also.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Whether Peter realized the implications of this before the events of Acts 10, Paul would later describe Gentiles as 'afar off'. We see the outpouring on Gentiles in Acts 10 also, and Peter quoting the Lord's words about John the Baptist and baptism with the Holy Ghost in reference to the Gentiles. He said to the circumcision group to whom he was talking that the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon 'us a the beginning'.

But all of this passes through the constraints of the two outpourings or the apostle's hands.

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.

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.

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.

It's a tall order. But you must show a third way the Baptism of the Holy Spirit came using scripture alone.

Jesus said the Baptism.

Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who

Here's how it worked. All believers received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This continues until the end of the world. But the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles and included the gifts of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and prophecy. Prophecy was no different from Ezekiel's, or Isaiah's prophecy. It was God's word. Only the Apostles had this. These were the signs and wonders of an apostle.

But they also passed these gifts on to others through their hands. But those who received these gifts could not pass them on. The gift of the Holy Spirit remains today, but the signs and wonders, expired with the Apostles. Prophecy and tongues when written became the NT writings and expired as the scriptures began circulating.

Contemplate how signs and wonders are performed. Luke gives us the answer in Acts 4:29-30.

And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.

Does the Lord no longer stretch out His hand to heal? Are signs and wonders no longer performed through the name of His holy servant Jesus?

nope

You have words And terms mixed up

Your own position is not that the Spirit was given using scripture alone, but rather through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

The burden of proof is on you to show how God has decreed or determined to limit how the Spirit may operate. You have not done so. You have shown an example and ignored other scripture that disproves your assertions. Please see my recent post on this, the one right before this post.

The idea that God can only work exactly the way he worked in X number of cases in the Bible is flawed reasoning. But I showed counterexamples that outright disprove your theories above.

Samaria was a unique case and it was important for the apostles to accept them. The verse you cite in no way supports your conclusion, and does not even mention imparting gifts through the laying on of hands.

In Acts, Peter tells Simon why he could have no part in laying hands on people and their receiving the Holy Ghost.
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Peter's answer was that it was because his heart was not right in the sight of God. It was NOT because Simon was not an apostle.

Was Ananias one of the twelve. This man is referred to is referred to as a 'disciple.'
Acts 9
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.




And this was apparently done without Peter laying hands on them. They heard his message and believed.



This is speculation. It could also be an area of ministry that Philip, an evangelist, did not minister in. The Old Testament already established long ago that one could be empowered by the Spirit to prophesy without the laying on of hands of the 12 apostles, who weren't even born yet. Zecharias was filled with the Spirit and prophesied.

You have no authority to bind the Spirit only to work in some of the ways mentioned in scripture, but not in others. Elders can lay hands on people, and gifts can be imparted through prophecy.

I Timothy 4
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.



Paul received the Spirit, apparently without the help of the 12 apostles. That shows that God can fill someone with the Holy Spirit, someone who lays hands on others who are then filled with the Spirit, without going through the 12 apostles... if He so chooses. I make my assertion based on the fact that Paul says of his visit to meet certain apostles in Jerusalem that they that seemed to be somewhat added nothing to him, and the statement of Ananias about his being sent that Paul might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Your method of considering verses that disprove our theory as exceptions, and thereby assuming the Spirit of God must bow and submit to your theories is flawed. God is sovereign, and He is not bound to follow the conclusions you draw from, or read into, the scriptures you cherry-pick as relevant.



That's a convoluted concept. Tongues and prophecy were evident in scripture at some cases of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is more than that. It describes individuals being immersed in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit being poured out is a picture of the Spirit being poured out on people.

Why would you think the Lord would want to be stingy with the Holy Spirit when it comes to His people after Christ sent the comforter?

Luke 11
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?



Again, the scriptures you refer to do not support your conclusion. The fact that you may go to a church that misuses II Timothy 3:17 that way does not mean that is the appropriate interpretation. You are trying to make it mean something that it clearly did not to either Paul or Timothy. They did not have a completed canon. Paul was reminding Timothy of the scriptures he grew up with, which would likely have been the Old Testament, unless his mother or grandmother had access to some early epistles like James or a written gospel. So Paul was not talking about the complete New Testament canon, which Timothy did not even have access to, replacing the spiritual gifts.

If Paul were issuing a cessationist decree and saying Timothy had all he needed in the scripture he had, then scripture written later, like II Timothy 4 and the book of Revelation would not be inspired. The gift of prophecy would have ceased so those books could not be inspired. Revelation predicted future prophets and miracles, by the way.

Let's look at the verses in question
II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(NKJV)

'Man of God' is used as the near equivalent of 'prophet' in the Old Testament. Timothy already has a gift he received through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. He already has a gift in him through the laying on of Paul's hands.

Paul does not say 'Scripture is all that is given...that the man of God may be...thoroughly equipped." The verse says "All Scripture is given..." Some cessationists appear to have dyslexia.

Give a soldier a rifle so that he may be thoroughly equipped. That makes sense. But that statement doesn't prove the rifle is all he needs. He's not thoroughly equipped without the rifle. But he may also have a uniform, a helmet, and some tools and provisions. the rifle is necessary for him to be fully equipped.

Similarly, this passage tells us that scripture is given that the man of God might be fully equipped, but not that it is all he needs.

The foolish thing about arguing for cessationism based on this is that the scriptures indicate that we need gifted members of the body of Christ. Cessationists wouldn't say that we don't need faith, hope, love, water baptism or holiness because we have the Bible. These are things the Bible teaches we need. So it doesn't make sense to say that we don't need spiritual gifts because the Bible teaches that we do need these.



And Timothy received a gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders, mentioned earlier. One can also pray to receive a spiritual gift like interpretation of tongues (I Corinthians 14:13.) The doctrinal teaching of scripture is that gifts are given as the Spirit wills. (I Corinthians 12:11.) Examples and teaching of scripture show the Spirit being received and gifts and manifestations of the Spirit being given spontaneously as the Spirit fell (Acts 2), through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 10, II Timothy 2), through prophecy accompanied by the laying on of the apostles hands (II Timothy 4), and in response to prayer (I Corinthian 14:13.)

We should take all scripture into account, not just look at one and create a doctrine that contradicts the others.

Nah.

I


It doesn't say when scripture complete.



It only say when It perfect come. You add scripture.

You say prophecy not complete. Book of revelation is prophecy so

See my equation below

Prophecy not complete

Book of reve is prophecy

So book of rev is not complete.

In other word when you say prophecy not complete = you say book of revelation not complete.

Jesus also promise to send Holy Spirit to teach

Is that also replace by bible, No need Holy Spirit anymore because for doctrine replace by complete bible?