Baptism of the Holy Spirit

 In responding to Q4 Has the Holy Spirit remained with the church since Pentecost ? Revelation 11”6 (sic) predicted that after the apostolic times, for more then two hundred years the church deviated from the Truth and took part in the worldly filth of the Roman religion.  From that time on, the Holy Spirit stopped its descend (sic)” (West Malaysia website).

This is just one of those revealing statements of what they really think. It becomes obvious that they do not present everything to the public that they believe. Think about what they are saying? From their own teaching perspective there were no Christians to be found in this period of time. So when did Holy Spirit begin to descend again? They do not specify a date in their materials but one can surmise from their teaching of the latter rain that it is when they began their church. 

“The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for entering heaven. speaking in tongues is the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit.”(7).

 If they meant one believing and receiving the spirit and being baptized into the body as it states in 1 Cor.12:13 it could be agreed upon, but this is not what they mean at all. They affirm that the sign and evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking in unintelligible tongues. Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit prays to God with a spiritual tongue without having to be taught how to do so. It is a prerequisite for entering heaven by this church. So if one does not speak in tongues they can’t go. What example do we have for this? None! In fact John the baptizer was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mothers womb before he could speak, and he never spoke in tongues in his ministry. So do they agree he was not saved? The 3000 saved at Pentecost never spoke in tongues, so they are excluded. If this was an integral part of the salvation experience it certainly would be mentioned, especially the first time the Holy Spirit saved a whole group of people like this. But it is not. If speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation then wouldn't it be evident that the Holy Spirit would have all manifest this gift each time when they are saved?    

If one wants to make a doctrine from a few scriptures than we can conclude from Acts 19:6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” So should we require prophesy instead of tongues. For Paul makes it clear I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5). So should we assume that one must prophesy to be really prove we are saved? The Holy Spirit is a gift to prove salvation and any other Biblical manifestations are just that, a proof, but not THE ONLY proof. 

MUST You Speak in Tongues to prove you have the Holy Spirit. They ask on their website “what evidence do you have that you have received the Holy Spirit? If you have not received the Holy Spirit, what proof do you have that God lives in you?” 

Can you prove that EVERY Christian spoke in tongues? How could you when Paul said they do not. How many REAL TRUE Christians are these people willing to exclude by the exclusive mandates of their gospel. 

If we take all of Paul's statement on this in context we find the truth “I wish you all had the gift of 'speaking in tongues' (1 Cor. 14:5). Here he is speaking to Christians, a strange thing to say if they tongues are a sign for ALL believers. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor.14:18) He would be boasting to the unsaved of a spiritual gift he has and they don’t.  Does this sound like a good a example of an apostle? You can’t accept the Bible as the word of God and then change a clear teaching like this to form your own Pentecostal predilection.

Of course their position is not an exclusive private interpretation of the Scripture,  many other Oneness Pentecostals held the same wrong view even before they did. Numerous Pentecostals today view speaking in tongues as an integral part of exhibiting they were baptized in the Holy Spirit.  Some Pentecostals (majority are Oneness) make it a requirement for salvation -- one is not saved unless they speak in tongues. This belief is not supported by Scripture ANYWHERE. While evangelicals may disagree on tongues being for today, this does not make them unsaved. What makes someone unsaved is not believing that the crucifixion with the shed blood of Christ is sufficient alone to save us, even if you do speak in tongues prophesy and have other signs. 

This becomes a contradiction on their part because they state one must be baptized first to be cleansed and have salvation. So did they receive the Spirit before they were saved?  In Acts 10:43  the gentiles received the Spirit before baptism, from hearing the word and believing. These Gentiles spoke in tongues. Acts 11:16-18 Peter recounts what the Lord said about the difference between water baptism and spirit baptism. Vs. 17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as he did unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Peter says it was received the same way for both the Jews and the Gentiles. In fact, Peter, who everyone uses for teaching baptismal salvation makes it clear, recalling the event in Acts 10 in Acts 15:8-11. V.8 “And God, which knoweth the hearts, BARE THEM WITNESS, GIVING THEM THE HOLY GHOST, EVEN AS HE DID UNTO US, “and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” “...But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” They were all saved the same way, by faith. That is not my opinion that's the Bible's teaching. Saved means you possess the Holy Spirit.   What we find in the book of Acts is no set formula for the giving of the Spirit, but the same pattern is salvation by grace through faith.  All this proves is that they have a narrow view of Biblical history using selective Bible passages. 

In Acts 8:17 When Philip preached to the Samaritans he sent for Peter and John who were apostles to come to the Samaritans who had already received the word of God and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But they still did not have the Spirit because it was not preached to them by the apostles (Peter needed to be there; as he was present for all three groups salvation -- the Jews, the Samaritans, the Gentiles to approve their entering the body of Christ). When they approved of these believers some type of outward sign occurred, it doesn’t tell us what exactly  it was. It could have been tongues or prophecy or both, since both are noticeable. 

Historic Orthodox Christianity and the Bible teaches there is a tri-unity in God. God is one in being 3 in persons (non-human of course). This is a crucial teaching that is denied. 

They teach-Everything we do must be done in Jesus name. (Col.3:17; Mark 16:17). Yet most churches do not use Jesus' name in the baptism. They, follow the Catholic teaching of baptizing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost” (Mat.28:19). The apostles never used this Trinitarian title in the baptism. They understood that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is only one God and the name of our Lord and God is Jesus (John 20.28; l John 5:7; Rev.1:8,17-18; Isa.9:6).”  

This is the Oneness teaching that came out of the Asuza revival by 1915. So this is not a new revelation, theirs came afterwards. Anti-Trinitarians always appeal to the Roman Catholic church as their whipping post on this subject. This again is not true, unless you want to push back the Catholic institution to right after the apostles. Since they can’t get around Mt.28 and its clear instructions, they must change its meaning and intent. (go to Mt. 28- baptism in Jesus name)

They write “Why is the view of Trinitarianism so hard to understand?  Because it has taken the teaching of the One True God who manifested Himself in three ways and has sought to make three Persons out of Him.  Look at  “three Persons” any way you wish and you still have three distinct and separate Beings.  Three separate Beings can only mean three distinct Gods” (West Malaysia web). Three manifestations does not explain God at all, in fact it hides who God is, he loses His personhood and identity. The fact that three, Father, Son and comforter are all eternal existing simultaneously seems to refute the idea that they are only manifestations like fire or light that appeared to man throughout history. Then one needs to explain why God was manifesting like this before he even created mankind 

In Jn.17 Jesus states “Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”  Before the world was, he preexisted as God- for only God existed at that time, therefore he was not a creature. He became a creature through the virgin birth by taking on human flesh to house his Spirit that was God. It is the Son that was sent to the earth from heaven by the Father. The Father did not become flesh. 

John 1:2-3: “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him.” Is the world and all things made through a manifestation? That's two different subjects here, Father and Son (who is called a “He”). Fathers and Son are not manifestations. Clearly God is communicating a relationship between the two eternally existing persons that are simultaneously existent.

The Father speaking to the Son (who is a manifestation),” But to the Son he says “Your throne, O’ God is forever and ever”(Heb.1:8). In Heb.1:10 The Father speaking of the Son, “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands...”

What they have done is deny the deity of the Son. For if the Son is God then He is eternal, existing before the world was made. The Son is not God because the Father is in him but because he is God by nature as the Son. To oneness the Son is not the exact representation of the Father but only a vessel the Father lived in. But they also say he too is a manifestation. The Bible has enough Scriptures to prove that the Son is God as the Father is God but they are not the same in person but same in being, as God. The Bible says the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, they are one in nature. Three persons existing simultaneously, which share the one essence equally. Heb.1 tells us the Son is the exact representation of another, the Father. The express image of his PERSON. When it says Jesus is the exact image of God should we not think of him as a person who has the nature of God or a manifestation. And in who's image is he exactly like? Another who is a person, his Father, not a manifestation. If the image is a person so is the one he is the image of. 

To change the eternity of the Son they write “The “Word” is “Logos,” a conception or idea.  God had in the very beginning of time conceived the idea of man’s redemption through His becoming man.  The idea materialized when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Website). 

The Sabbath

They teach that many professing Christians are taught wrong in not keeping the Sabbath, that it is not for Israel only. That the ten commandments are requirements for all human beings (including the Sabbath).  “The Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a commandment to every God-worshiper. Although Christ has freed us from the strict Sabbatic regulations under the Mosaic laws, the Sabbath day still remains; and Christians still need to keep the Sabbath as a sacred day of rest.” 

“the Sabbath is a day to remember the salvation of God. It is a constant reminder that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from the bondage of sin and to give true rest to our souls.”

“Sabbath observance is also a sign between God an his worshippers” “...the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a commandment to every God-worshiper.” “the Sabbath day is day to remember the salvation of God” (22)

Where does it ever say such a thing? The Sabbath was given before there was Jesus' death and is no way connected to a sacrifice for sin even in the Old Testament. They are giving it a spiritual significance the Bible does not. In fact it is Sunday the disciples remembered the sacrifice as they celebrated His resurrection.

“Although Christ has freed us from the strict Sabbatic regulations under the Mosaic laws, the Sabbath day still remains; and Christians still need to keep the Sabbath as a sacred day of rest.”

From the primitive church there was a transition time. The early writings and Scripture show the early Jewish Christians kept both without any conflict not as there is today among the legalists. But some Jews became legalistic and began to influence the church. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for being influenced into thinking God expects them to observe Old Testament festivals, including the Sabbath. “you observe days and months, seasons, and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” To observe days, the months, years; the holy days is a sign of weakness and immaturity. The DAYS are the Sabbath[s] and Holy days. Months are the new moon festival, seasons are the festivals of Lev.23; years are the sabbatical years and the year of jubilee. Paul did not want the believers to become entangled in bondage to the law. We don’t rest or worship on one day or another but rest spiritually in Jesus and His work, we have the substance not the shadows of the Old Testament.

“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17).

Leviticus 23 lists several “Holy Convocations” starting with the seventh-day Sabbath, it lists other “seven holy convocations,” the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened bread, firstfruits, the Feast of Booths, etc. All are identified as “holy convocations,” they are all held with equal merit. So if one makes an issue of Sabbath keeping they should keep all the other feasts that become Sabbaths too.

The first years of the Church were made up of Jews so they did go to synagogue on Sabbath to worship with other Jews who did not believe in Jesus to reach them but they also met by themselves on Sunday. It's not that Sunday replaced the Sabbath but that it was a different day for worship, something the Sabbath was never intended for, because it was given as a day of rest. Certainly the church understood that the Sabbath commemorated a finished creation with God’s rest. The first day commemorates a finished redemption and a new work. Neither Jesus nor the apostles teach it is necessary for the believer to keep the Sabbath.