Baptism with the Holy Spirit
|
12. Where are - according to your
point of view - all those who lived before the birth of the Pentecostal
Movement, which rose at the beginning of the twentieth century? Were they
mistaken? Have you ever wondered if speaking with tongues was so much
important in order to receive the Holy Spirit, or His manifestation? Why did
speaking in tongues occur just three times? And why did the apostle Paul in
all his doctrinal epistles never mention it? Then I will give you by myself
the explanation with the Word of God. Why did the disciples speak with other
tongues? It was absolutely necessary an outward sign, otherwise the disciples
would not know that the Holy Spirit had been poured out and that the Holy
Spirit might be given also to the pagans, while to us who live after that
period of introduction to the new dispensation cannot be said that the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is necessarily connected with speaking with
other tongues; on the contrary, Paul affirms that not all speak with other
tongues (1 Corinthians 12:13-30). If it were as you would like us to believe,
why then did the same Spirit not guide Paul to write that thing in his
epistles, where we can read the fundamental doctrines of Christianity? And if
the Holy Spirit did not prompt Paul to write that, why today do you want to
make it become a doctrine? Why did not Paul and many others speak in tongues
when they were converted? Why did not |
|
All those believers that from the day of Pentecost until the beginning
of the twentieth century believed and stated that the baptism with the Holy
Spirit or the filling up with the Holy Spirit was not immediately followed by
speaking with other tongues, were mistaken just as are mistaken all those
believers who believe and teach such a thing nowadays. It does not matter how
much famous were those believers, they did not believe nor teach rightly
concerning the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Of course I am not saying that
they were not born again, but only that they lacked knowledge on this part of
the counsel of God. They were in a condition similar to that of Apollos
before he met Aquila and Priscilla, for Apollos – even though he taught about
Jesus accurately – knew only the baptism of John (so he did not know the
baptism with the Holy Spirit) and when Aquila and Priscilla heard him “they took
him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts
18:26). Of course, those believers were saved if they continued in the faith to
the end, but on this point they were mistaken. They were mistaken as all
those believers who taught that water baptism could be ministered to infants
too, or that water baptism had the power to regenerate spiritually the
sinner, and so on. Can you say that those believers taught about water
baptism accurately? Certainly not. So why are you offended if I say that
those believers who taught that the baptism with the Spirit is not followed
by speaking in tongues were mistaken? |
|
Now I will give an answer to these other questions of yours: why did speaking
in tongues occur only three times, and why did Paul not speak in tongues when
he was converted? First of all I want to say that the fact that in the book
of the Acts of the apostles are recorded only three cases in which believers
began to speak with other tongues when the Holy Spirit came on them, does not
mean at all that speaking in tongues occurred only three times during all
those years that went from the ascension of Christ to the journey of Paul to
Rome. If we came to this conclusion, we should also come to the conclusion
that since in the book of the Acts of apostles only once it is written that a
believer was baptized by immersion – I am referring to the Eunuch of whom
Luke says that he and Philip went down both into the water and Philip
baptized him (Acts 8:38) – at that time water baptism was not always
ministered by immersion and thus we should not conclude that water baptism
must be ministered only by immersion!!! And again, we should also conclude
that since in the book of the Acts of the apostles it is not written even
once that believers were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit as Jesus – before He was taken up to heaven (Matthew
28:19) - had commanded the apostles to do (I say it again, not even once),
the apostles did not baptize using the Trinitarian formula but they baptized
only in the name of Jesus Christ!! And in addition to this, we should
conclude that since it is not always written that believers were baptized in
water (see the examples of the believers at Antioch of Syria, of the
proconsul Sergius Paulus, of the believers at Antioch of Pisidia, at Iconium,
at Thessalonica, and at Athens), not always the believers at that time were
baptized in water, thus today believers are not bound to be baptized!! Now, I
ask you: ‘Can we come to such conclusions?’ Certainly not. Therefore, the
fact that in the Acts only three times it is written that believers spoke
with other tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, cannot lead us
to think that speaking with other tongues was not a phenomenon that occurred
every time a believer was filled with the holy Spirit and consequently we
must not always expect that a believer will speak with other tongues when he
is filled with the Holy Spirit. |
|
As for Paul, we need to say that even though it is not written in book
of Acts that when he was filled with the Holy Spirit through the laying on of
the hands of Ananias he began to speak with other tongues, actually he began
to speak with other tongues. We infer this from the fact that Paul said to
the saints of |
|
You say that Paul in his epistles never speaks about speaking with
other tongues as a sign of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. You are right,
however I would like you to note that in all his epistles – where you say we
can read the fundamental doctrines of Christianity – he never stated that water
baptism must be administered by immersion, and he never said that it must be
ministered in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
What shall we do then? Shall we baptize people also by sprinkling, and only
in the name of Jesus Christ (or only in the name of the Son of God)? |
|
Now I come to the argument you give to hold that today there is no
need of the sign of speaking with other tongues to confirm that the Holy
Spirit has fallen upon a believer. I confess that even though I tried to
understand your argument, I could not understand it. For I don’t understand
why that sign was necessary to the early believers in order to understand
that the Holy Spirit had come on them and that the Holy Spirit could be given
also to the Gentiles, and after a certain period of time that same sign is no
longer necessary IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THOSE SAME THINGS!!! Why should we
not need that same visible sign in order to understand that the Holy Spirit has
come upon believers? In my opinion, it is logical to think that the same
outward sign is still necessary for the same reasons it was necessary at that
time. According to your words, today we do not need something that the
apostles needed so much!!! And then I ask you: ‘How can we know then that
somebody – whether he is a Jew or a Gentile - has been baptized with the Holy
Spirit? Of course, you will say: ‘Not by the sign of tongues!’ Well, then it
should have been the same thing with the early disciples, don’t you think so?
Actually, I can’t understand why today we – according to your point of view –
are able to understand if someone has been baptized with the Holy Spirit even
without the sign of tongues, while the early disciples needed to see that
particular outward sign!!! That is really a contradiction. |
|
You are right when you say that not all speak with tongues, quoting
the words of Paul, but if you read carefully the context, there the apostle is
speaking about the diversities of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:28), that is,
about the gift of the Holy Spirit called “divers kinds of tongues” 1
Corinthians 12:10 (which is the ability to speak with several foreign tongues
by the Spirit) that a believer may receive (just as he may not receive) for
in the Body of Christ not all have the same gift. The same thing can be said
about the gifts of healings and the gift of interpretation of tongues (1
Corinthians |
|
As for the question about Elisabeth, please read the answer to the
following question: ‘Under the law when some people were
filled with the Holy Spirit they did not begin to speak with other tongues,
could you tell me why?’ |