Baptism In The Holy Spirit

I don't see that the statement as necessarily meaning fulfillment. If you read it one way it could indeed be taken as "This ( that is, event taking place) is that which is spoken by Joel". Or you could take it in the sense of "This (meaning the following quote) is what Joel said in his book". I take it as the latter for the reason that the sun did not go dark, the moon did not turn to blood. Not to mention no blood, fire or vapor, dreams or visions. But Israel was at the end of the 69th week, so the 'end time' message of Joel was very relevant. (There may have been a partial or preliminary fulfillment at Pentecost, however, as the spirit was poured out on the Apostles.) Had they accepted Christ at that time, He would have soon returned and the times of refreshing would have began. Acts 3:19-21

'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.'

Had they repented as Peter called on them to do, they would have soon saw the (full) events of Joel's prophecy fulfilled in that day.

That isn't Darby or Scofield. That is Peter.



Are you a preterist Mr. Darby?

What Peter said in Acts 2:16 was; this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel. The grammatical form is very clear, Peter is talking about the Apostles speaking in tongues.
It happened in Matthew 27:45-54 and the wording of Joel was NOT literal, but metaphorical. The color actually did appear.
Christ was ALREADY their savior so I don't know what you mean by "Had they accepted Christ at that time." However you conclusion is totally out in left field and NOT supported by ANY scripture.

Again I don't know who you are referring to by "they", but that day, v41 states; So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day about three thousand souls.









 
Are you a preterist Mr. Darby?

What Peter said in Acts 2:16 was; this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel. The grammatical form is very clear, Peter is talking about the Apostles speaking in tongues.
It happened in Matthew 27:45-54 and the wording of Joel was NOT literal, but metaphorical. The color actually did appear.
Christ was ALREADY their savior so I don't know what you mean by "Had they accepted Christ at that time." However you conclusion is totally out in left field and NOT supported by ANY scripture.

Again I don't know who you are referring to by "they", but that day, v41 states; So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day about three thousand souls.

I'm a Fundamental, Dispensational Premillennialist and a strong literalist . Since, you seem to tend toward Charismatic type theology, it is obvious that you won't agree with what I wrote. 'They' in the line 'had they accepted Christ' refers to national Israel.
 
I am responding...reacting to what you said "That is why I'm so thankful for the Holy Spirit who leads us and guides us into all truth. " I'm often at odds with one of my sisters over this same thinking. In her case she avoids purchasing a product if it carries the 'islamic council's' endorsement.
I think Brodav's point is more that scripture is already written, no need to repeat it . I agree with that. Most Christians books sell only because they dramatize and add to scripture. I would rather study Paul's theology fifty times over before opening a book by Calvin ;).

I must admit though that it does sound intimidating to hear Rusty mention 'Scofield this and Darby that. Bible plus wikipedia is a good enough combo to 'show ourselves approved'.
 
Stan? Into "Charismatic type theology"? Where?

Your declarations of theology, Mr.Darby. are the garden variety I have found in my contacts with Charismatics for over 40 years.

Charismatics don't follow dispensational theology out to all it's conclusions, though many hold to some form of dispensationalism. Pure dispensationalism will not admit to Charismatic doctrine.
 
I would rather study Paul's theology fifty times over before opening a book by Calvin ;).

I must admit though that it does sound intimidating to hear Rusty mention 'Scofield this and Darby that. Bible plus wikipedia is a good enough combo to 'show ourselves approved'.
Intimidating???? Nah, it is past getting old though.
Maybe I should get Admin to change my user name to Scofield? Nothing like having your name on everyones lips:)
 
I'm a Fundamental, Dispensational Premillennialist and a strong literalist . Since, you seem to tend toward Charismatic type theology, it is obvious that you won't agree with what I wrote. 'They' in the line 'had they accepted Christ' refers to national Israel.


Well I'm not sure why you would say this, but again what scripture are you referring to when you say "THEY"? You didn't provide the actual scripture reference and I don't have the whole Bible memorized.
Thanks
 
Charismatics don't follow dispensational theology out to all it's conclusions, though many hold to some form of dispensationalism. Pure dispensationalism will not admit to Charismatic doctrine.



Maybe you should clarify here Mr. D. I was born and raised in the RCC and was born AGAIN in the Pentecostal Church. I have never considered myself a Charismatic.
 
You still have not shown Stan's Charismatic leanings, Mr. Darby...Gonna let that accusation hang or prove yourself?

While addressing and quoting Stan you quipped:
Anyone who has read Stan's posts can see that he believes in some type of Charismatic/Pentecostal type theology. The 'proof' already stands in the forum. Your demand for 'proofs' for every offhand statement are nothing short of harassment. What are you trying to gain? I don't find 'proof' for many of your assertions either. He says himself that he was saved in a Pentecostal Church. I was not far off.
 
Well I'm not sure why you would say this, but again what scripture are you referring to when you say "THEY"? You didn't provide the actual scripture reference and I don't have the whole Bible memorized.
Thanks

I am referring to Peter's preaching to Israel in Acts 2 and 3. I thought that should have been obvious by my allusions. Sorry I wasn't as clear as I hoped I was. I think Charismatic theology is pretty similar to Pentecostal theology in the main. I detected that strain of thinking in your posts. No matter which of the twain you are, the point was that coming from that viewpoint, you are obviously not going to agree with what I posted.
 
"Pure" dispensationalism? I suppose you are a purist in that area as well?

This comment of yours seems to go counter to an earlier one that suggested that dispensationalism is strictly concerning prophetic eschatology...this is a new twist...

So a Christian can line up with your theory toe-to toe but if he teaches divine healing, he is an impure dipsy???

Well, if you read more about early 'dispy' history, you would know that Darby and Kelly condemned (as a result 0f their dispensational theology) the tongue speaking and prophecies of the Irvingites in their day. .Read Kelly's book on the Irvingites.
 
If I am not mistaken, Stan once claimed that he has prophesied; reasonable grounds for assuming he held to some type of Pentecostal or Charismatic type belief. No, I don't remember exactly where it was. And no, I have not gone about this forum demanding 'proof' for every inconsequential statement that someone I disagree with has made.
 
Hardly a broad brush statement. My exact words:

" you seem to tend toward Charismatic type theology".

Just a statement of how things looked from my perspective, based on the evidence I had seen.
Satisfied? Can we now end this questioning?
 
I know dispy and Irvingite history pretty well...That is not the issue or the thrust of my points...These are:



So Baptist and other non-Charismatics are pure dipsys in your eyes and Pentecostal dipsys are...what impure, warped corrupted...what term do you like?

Seems to me you are promoting Plymouthism, not merely dispensationalism, if you subdivide, parse and mentally exclude dipsys not of your fullest persuasion.

I don't care what you think I am promoting. I'm sorry I seem to attract so much of your interest actually.
 
I am referring to Peter's preaching to Israel in Acts 2 and 3. I thought that should have been obvious by my allusions. Sorry I wasn't as clear as I hoped I was. I think Charismatic theology is pretty similar to Pentecostal theology in the main. I detected that strain of thinking in your posts. No matter which of the twain you are, the point was that coming from that viewpoint, you are obviously not going to agree with what I posted.



OK well you said in post #4,"Had they repented as Peter called on them to do, they would have soon saw the (full) events of Joel's prophecy fulfilled in that day."
So you don't think anyone repented after what Peter preached in Acts 2? You don't think Acts 2:41 shows some 3000 Jews accepted salvation and were added to their number that day? It would be helpful if you would be far less equivocal.

I have no idea what Charismatic theology is. I am well aware of what Pentecostal Theology is, as I have spent most of my years in Pentecostal assemblies. I can assure you, I do NOT conform to orthodox Pentecostal theology. FYI, I would also consider myself a Fundamental, Dispensational Premillennialist, but NOT a STRONG literalist. The wording and context of ANY scripture will determine what form is being used, plus the indispensable need of the baptism and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our lives. When it comes to Revelation though I believe it to be far more literal than many think it is, including historic premillennialists.
So now that I have addressed your concern, how about addressing mine as indicated above and leave the labeling OFF the thread.
I follow God and His Word, NOT theologies.
 
I have explained myself. Yes, 3000 Jews were added to the Church but that was only a small portion of the total nation of Israel. My point is that the Nation AS A WHOLE did not accept Christ. The preaching in Acts 2 and 3 was aimed at national Israel to persuade them to accept Christ as the Messiah. As Peter said in the Acts 3 passage I quoted, national repentance on the part of national Israel would have caused God to have sent Christ. Hence, the events surrounding the 2nd Advent could have occurred in that generation if national Israel would have received Christ at that time. That fact reveals why Peter quoted a passage relating to the day of the Lord from Joel 2 in Acts 2. Had Israel have received Christ as her Messiah, those events would have been fulfilled in their fullness. That is the best I can explain it. If you still are not following me, then I don't know how else to explain it. I get the impression that you totally did not get the point of the above post that you questioned me about.

I don't feel that I did you any wrong in labeling your beliefs as 'Charismatic'. I had to have some word to describe the idea I was trying to convey, and that was the best one I could think of at the moment.

The idea that one can be a Dispensationalist and not a strict literalist is a bit of an oxymoron. To be a Dispensationalist is to be a strict literalist. The entire Dispensational system is based on a strictly literal hermeneutic. Strong literalism does not rule out metaphors, hyperbole, ect., but it does emphasize understanding speech as it would normally be understood in any other type of speech.

Let's be honest. Most followers of a theology would probably say that they are following the Bible and not a man made theology . Everyone from Dispensationalists to Amillennialists to Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, or Pentecostals would all insist that their particular views are the teaching of the Bible and not a man made theology.
 
I have explained myself. Yes, 3000 Jews were added to the Church but that was only a small portion of the total nation of Israel. My point is that the Nation AS A WHOLE did not accept Christ. The preaching in Acts 2 and 3 was aimed at national Israel to persuade them to accept Christ as the Messiah. As Peter said in the Acts 3 passage I quoted, national repentance on the part of national Israel would have caused God to have sent Christ. Hence, the events surrounding the 2nd Advent could have occurred in that generation if national Israel would have received Christ at that time. That fact reveals why Peter quoted a passage relating to the day of the Lord from Joel 2 in Acts 2. Had Israel have received Christ as her Messiah, those events would have been fulfilled in their fullness. That is the best I can explain it. If you still are not following me, then I don't know how else to explain it. I get the impression that you totally did not get the point of the above post that you questioned me about.

Actually you made a statement WITHOUT qualifying it. In 2:14, Peter was speaking to; “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem."

This was NOT directed at the nation of Israel, but at the God fearing Jews of EVERY nation living in Jerusalem at the time, V5. Obviously ONLY those within earshot would be able to hear him.
Joel 2 contains 32 verses, and Peter ONLY quotes Joel 2 from verses 28-32, the part about God's Spirit being poured out. Your statement here sounds like a 'historic premillenianist' one to me.
You're right, I didn't get the point because it was very equivocal and I like things to be clear and based on ACTUAL scripture. As I have already stated, I don't follow a THEOLOGY, I follow the BIBLE!

I don't feel that I did you any wrong in labeling your beliefs as 'Charismatic'. I had to have some word to describe the idea I was trying to convey, and that was the best one I could think of at the moment.

I was NOT offended in anyway, just wanted to clarify where I am coming from, but as I said, nothing near Charismatic.

The idea that one can be a Dispensationalist and not a strict literalist is a bit of an oxymoron. To be a Dispensationalist is to be a strict literalist. The entire Dispensational system is based on a strictly literal hermeneutic. Strong literalism does not rule out metaphors, hyperbole, ect., but it does emphasize understanding speech as it would normally be understood in any other type of speech.

Well that would be YOUR view, but the common view would be that a STRICT literalist takes everything in the Bible as literal. In any even thanks for clarifying. I'm be sure to keep this in mind when reading your posts.

Let's be honest. Most followers of a theology would probably say that they are following the Bible and not a man made theology . Everyone from Dispensationalists to Amillennialists to Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, or Pentecostals would all insist that their particular views are the teaching of the Bible and not a man made theology.

In my view as soon as you bring up theological terminology, as you did, then it's about a particular theology and THAT leads to all kinds of equivocation depending on the level of knowledge of the theology. I've debated unitarian/oneness people quite a bit, and they use the Trinity doctrine/theology all the time to tell me what I believe.
Let's just stick to the actual scriptures shall we?

Now as to the OP, have you been baptized with the Holy Spirit as identified in Acts 2:4?
 
As an aside, Stan: You make a good point. The Jews not in residence in national Israel were being addressed. Since all the Jews were required to travel to Jerusalem for the festival, therefore God had a full audience of representative Jews of many different cultures and languages. Hence the languages abilities here given by the Spirit:



and I will add that the Apostles did not SPEAK their different languages, they HEARD their different languages. The Apostles spoke in NEW tongues. The Greek word used here in Acts 2:4, is
heteros
and the Greek word in Mark 16:17, is
kainos.
Both words connote a language NEVER before spoken, i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different and of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.
 
Highly debatable, Stan.
Nothing about new or never before spoken here. Why the very next verses make that clear, IMO.
"Language" means dialect..."Tongue" also means "dialect"....Just as you can say we speak in the English tongue or the English language.
Mark's verse IMO refers to newness not an alien unearthly angel-talk...Just like folks said of Jesus :
If I spoke to a group of people in Chinese and you were present, it would be a different tongue to you and an unknown dialect as well.



Of course it's debatable Rusty, that's what Forums are for. Whether 'tongue' or 'language' or 'dialect', the point is it was something NOT heard before in history. Modern linguists also say it conforms to no known linguistic structure. Yes Mark refers to newness, as in nothing ever heard. I don't know where you get angel talk from but that not what I'm referring to. Paul talks about tongues of angels as a type of tongues, in 1 Cor 13:1, but NOT what is referred to here.
I would recognize ANY earthly language, just as I recognize the heavenly language of 'tongues'.
I'm not sure where you get your connotations from, but I'll give you Vine's for heteros AND kainos. Thayer's is not much different.

allos | heteros have a difference in meaning, which despite a tendency to be lost, is to be observed in numerous passages. Allosexpresses a numerical difference and denotes "another of the same sort;" heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort." Christ promised to send "another Comforter" (allos, "another like Himself," not heteros), Jhn 14:16. Paul says "I see a different (AV, "another") law," heteros, a law different from that of the spirit of life (not allos, "a law of the same sort"), Rom 7:23. After Joseph's death "another king arose," heteros, one of quite a different character, Act 7:18. Paul speaks of "a different gospel (heteros), which is not another" (allos, another like the one he preached), Gal 1:6, 7. See heteros(not allos) in Mat 11:3; Act 27:1; in Luk 23:32 heteroi is used of the two malefactors crucified with Christ. The two words are only apparently interchanged in 1Cr 1:16; 6:1; 12:8-10;14:17, 19, e.g., the difference being present, though not so readily discernible.
They are not interchangeable in 1Cr 15:39-41; here heteros is used to distinguish the heavenly glory from the earthly, for these differ in genus, and allos to distinguish the flesh of men, birds, and fishes, which in each case is flesh differing not in genus but in species. Allos is used again to distinguish between the glories of the heavenly bodies, for these also differ not in kind but in degree only.

denotes "new," of that which is unaccustomed or unused, not "new" in time, recent, but "new" as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old. "'The new tongues,' kainos, of Mar 16:17 are the 'other tongues,'heteros, of Act 2:4. These languages, however, were 'new' and 'different,' not in the sense that they had never been heard before, or that they were new to the hearers, for it is plain from Act 2:8 that this is not the case; they were new languages to the speakers, different from those in which they were accustomed to speak.
"The new things that the Gospel brings for present obedience and realization are: a new covenant, Mat 26:28 in some texts; a new commandment, Jhn 13:34; a new creative act, Gal 6:15; a new creation, 2Cr 5:17; a new man, i.e., a new character of manhood, spiritual and moral, after the pattern of Christ, Eph 4:24; a new man, i.e., 'the Church which is His (Christ's) body,' Eph 2:15.
"The new things that are to be received and enjoyed hereafter are: a new name, the believer's, Rev 2:17; a new name, the Lord's, Rev 3:12; a new song, Rev 5:9; a new Heaven and a new Earth, Rev 21:1; the new Jerusalem, Rev 3:12; 21:2; 'And He that sitteth on the Throne said, Behold, I make all things new,' Rev 21:5" *
 
Allow me to make myself more clear:

I see what happened 2000 years ago at Pentecost in the open air at Jerusalem as a supernatural experience, one in which the many native languages (not Hebrew or Aramaic )of the gathered Jews were spoken to via the Spirit by the upper room converts to Christ.

This is about biblical history, not personal denominated practices today, IMO.

What anyone wishes to do in the comfort of their own church is not the subject, nor the OP, as far as I can see.



As I pointed out, only the NEW tongues was spoken by the 12 Apostles. There are over 15 languages indicated in 2:8-11, plus Hebrew. Note, that although the Apostles were speaking in a NEW tongue, the comment in 7. It is evident that their Galilean accent was NOT hidden in their praise. Just as a Chinese and English person's accent will come through no matter what they speak.

As the OP is about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, all these aspects are obviously germane to the OP.
 
Explain to me why "heaven"needs to impose or give it's language to earthlings?
If God is indeed omnipotent, why will He not just speak to them in their respective earthly languages...as He did back on Pentecost day....where He was preaching the Gospel to them through the upper room believers?

Why would God, only on Pentecost day, have this unknown heavenly language run riot among unbelivers when He clearly admonished against that sort of thing here?:

Why would God want folks to think Christians "mad"? Does that attract seekers? Does it today?


'Heaven" didn't...the Holy Spirit did. It is so OUR spirits can communicate with God because as Paul says in Romans 8:26; We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us


There with groans and here with the tongues of the Holy Spirit. Paul gives clear instructions about it's corporate use in 1 Cor 14, and in v18 he notes about how much he speak in tongues coupled with v28 where he instructs that without the order he gives, speaking in tongues should be quietly to yourself and God.

This did NOT only happen in Acts 2:4, it also happened in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 in addition to what Paul taught about in 1 Cor 12 and 14.
I have no idea what you mean by "run riot among unbelievers." Only those that believed in Christ and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues. 1 Cor 14 is way after Acts 2 so your question makes no sense.

You are using human rational now Rusty. To quote an old adage; "Our's is NOT to reason why", or as Paul said in 1 Cor 14:39, "....do NOT forbid speaking in tongues." I see you don't get this, I pray you will just examine the scriptures and let God make it real to you.
 
Back
Top