Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Thanks for your honest answer.

I agree partly. I believe that one hasn't experienced the fullness of the experience available if they haven't received the gift of tongues, but I also would never say that one is not saved who has not spoken in tongues, because the Bible just does not say that explicitly.

Mark 16 is the closest we have to any scripture in the Bible that says exactly what salvation is comprised of, and it does not include tongues in that.

Are you saying that people can be partially filled with the Holy Ghost?

I don't tell people they have the Holy Ghost nor do I tell them they do not. I think the thing to do is to ask someone how they know they have the Holy Ghost. If they say because they believe, (which is the common response) then where is any scriptural basis for believing to be equivalent to the Holy Ghost baptism. Tongues is the only sign of Spirit baptism recorded in the Bible.

Someone made a statement earlier that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost:

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

I think that the experience that John had was somehow different then what they experienced at Pentecost, because here the scripture says the Spirit had not yet been given.

I know the scripture speaks of John being filled with the Holy Ghost, but that was prior to Jesus fulfillment of all OT prophecy. I know people on here like to tear the word dispensation apart so I will use better terms. We are under a new covenant a better covenant. In the new covenant we are sealed by the Holy Ghost (circumcision of the heart). If someone wants to go through life believing they have the Holy Ghost with no scriptural authority to establish the fact then let them do it. I myself have an expectation to see someone speaking in a language foreign to their understanding.

One of the prerequisites for the first 7 deacons in the book of Acts was that they must be full of the Holy Ghost. How do you think they determined they were full of the Holy Ghost? Think what you want, but I am betting they had heard them speak with tongues. I have never heard a Pentecostal preach that you are saved by tongues, but only that tongues give witness to the Holy Ghost baptism.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, one can be saved but not have the Spirit? No.


Can one be saved and yet not born of the Spirit? No

Can one be saved, all the way to the end, and wind up not entering the kingdom? That's God's call.

And why did you switch to talking about "receiving the GIFT OF TONGUES"? None of us have argued one must receive the GIFT OF TONGUES to be saved.

I grew up in OP and I know perfectly well that they earnestly believe one must speak in tongues or they are not saved.

I believe that A MEASURE of the spirit of the Lord enters the heart upon repentance because of the following scripture:

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And upon obedience, the full measure of the spirit can be afforded in the life of one who has believed, and been obedient, and the gift of tongues can be part of that experience, but as Mark 16:16 demonstrates, the initial experience of salvation includes repentance and baptism.

I believe that the spirit of the Lord draws man to Him, and upon obedience by repentance and baptism, a measure of the spirit of the Lord comes into that life. And upon continuing in full obedience, as taught by the disciples and apostles, the fruit of the spirit will be manifested in the lives of those who have believed and been obedient.

To say the gift of tongues is necessary to know if one is saved or not is not taught anywhere in the NT.

I stand on what the scriptures say, and do not add or take away from the simple written truths.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Are you saying that people can be partially filled with the Holy Ghost?

See my post above.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't tell people they have the Holy Ghost nor do I tell them they do not. I think the thing to do is to ask someone how they know they have the Holy Ghost. If they say because they believe, (which is the common response) then where is any scriptural basis for believing to be equivalent to the Holy Ghost baptism. Tongues is the only sign of Spirit baptism recorded in the Bible.

Again, see my post above. There is a measure of the spirit comes into the heart at repentance and baptism. It has to, otherwise, how could repentance and baptism effect a change in the life of one believing? I think it's wonderful that you don't tell people when they have received. Tell them to seek the fullness of the spirit of the Lord in their lives, and let the Lord give them the gifts of the spirit as He chooses.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Someone made a statement earlier that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost:

It was a measure of the spirit that he no doubt received. The fullness of the spirit of the Lord working effectively came at Pentecost.

Think of this - how were all the great miracles and faith accomplished throughout the OT? How could Isaiah say it was "fire shut up in my bones", if he did not have the spirit of the Lord moving within his heart?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think that the experience that John had was somehow different then what they experienced at Pentecost, because here the scripture says the Spirit had not yet been given.

No, it was the same spirit. The spirit of the Lord does not change! But it was a measure of the spirit. Otherwise, how did Isaiah feel "fire shut up in my bones"? Does the spirit of the Lord change?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I know the scripture speaks of John being filled with the Holy Ghost, but that was prior to Jesus fulfillment of all OT prophecy. I know people on here like to tear the word dispensation apart so I will use better terms. We are under a new covenant a better covenant. In the new covenant we are sealed by the Holy Ghost (circumcision of the heart). If someone wants to go through life believing they have the Holy Ghost with no scriptural authority to establish the fact then let them do it. I myself have an expectation to see someone speaking in a language foreign to their understanding.

One of the prerequisites for the first 7 deacons in the book of Acts was that they must be full of the Holy Ghost. How do you think they determined they were full of the Holy Ghost? Think what you want, but I am betting they had heard them speak with tongues.

I don't doubt that they did speak with tongues, but the account does not say that. You are assigning the HG as equivocal with tongues, which scripture does not do.

Tongues were a sign that FOLLOWED, but the initial giving of the spirit had to come with obedience at repentance/baptism, and then the various gifts of the spirit were poured out as the Lord willed.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I have never heard a Pentecostal preach that you are saved by tongues, but only that tongues give witness to the Holy Ghost baptism.

But what you are just saying is a contradiction, don't you see it? Tell someone, well you need to seek the gift of tongues, so you can have the witness of the spirit to be saved, is saying - you are not saved until you speak with the evidence of tongues, you are just twisting words, but the meaning is clear.

[KeptByTheWord]

In a nutshell:

If one is seeking the Lord, and wanting to be saved, tell them to be obedient in repentance and baptism in Jesus name, and to seek the fullness of the spirit of the Lord in their lives, and let the Lord give them the gifts of the spirit as He chooses, and the signs will follow them that believe.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

But what you are just saying is a contradiction, don't you see it? Tell someone, well you need to seek the gift of tongues, so you can have the witness of the spirit to be saved, is saying - you are not saved until you speak with the evidence of tongues, you are just twisting words, but the meaning is clear.

It's not a contradiction, because you're equivocating the gift of tongues with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. They are not the same thing. One might never have the gift of tongues, but still be saved.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

To say the gift of tongues is necessary to know if one is saved or not is not taught anywhere in the NT.

I stand on what the scriptures say, and do not add or take away from the simple written truths.

Nobody is saying the gift of tongues is necessary to know if one is saved or not. You are arguing against a straw man.

You DO add to the scriptures, with this idea that all speaking in tongues is the gift of tongues. And you take away from the scriptures with your idea that people can receive the Spirit without them speaking in tongues as a result.

The Bible is clear, those who receive the Spirit speak in other tongues when it happens. There is not ONE INSTANCE in the book.of Acts of anyone receiving the Spirit and NOT speaking in tongues.

[good samaritan]

Again, see my post above. There is a measure of the spirit comes into the heart at repentance and baptism. It has to, otherwise, how could repentance and baptism effect a change in the life of one believing?

Scripture??? Where in the scripture does it say a measure of the Spirit is given at repentance and baptism? How do people that don't even profess to be a Christian live good lives? Repentance means to turn from your direction and go to another. The change your are speaking is by definition what repentance is.

Repentance is a change from sin to God

Baptism signifies the remission of sins (that literally comes through the blood of Jesus)

Holy Ghost was given to seal us till the day that the Lord comes.

It was a measure of the spirit that he no doubt received. The fullness of the spirit of the Lord working effectively came at Pentecost.

Isn't that where they spoke with tongues?

Think of this - how were all the great miracles and faith accomplished throughout the OT? How could Isaiah say it was "fire shut up in my bones", if he did not have the spirit of the Lord moving within his heart?

The scripture doesn't say that anyone had received the Holy Ghost baptism prior to Pentecost. I am not denying God's Spirit working through the OT saints, but they had a different experience.

No, it was the same spirit. The spirit of the Lord does not change! But it was a measure of the spirit. Otherwise, how did Isaiah feel "fire shut up in my bones"? Does the spirit of the Lord change?

I never said that they received a different Spirit, I said they had a different experience. look back at my post.

"John 7:39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

If John and the OT saints experience was not different then what does this mean?

I don't doubt that they did speak with tongues, but the account does not say that. You are assigning the HG as equivocal with tongues, which scripture does not do.

I am saying that tongues is evidence not equivocal(that is not the same thing no matter how you think it). Evidence means proof of something.

You are accusing people of saying, "you must speak with tongues when you get the Holy Ghost".

People are actually saying, "You will speak with tongues when you are filled with the Holy Ghost".

How you view the difference between these 2 are a matter of the heart.

Tongues were a sign that FOLLOWED, but the initial giving of the spirit had to come with obedience at repentance/baptism, and then the various gifts of the spirit were poured out as the Lord willed.

Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before baptism, so you should change your repentance/baptism to just repentance.

But what you are just saying is a contradiction, don't you see it? Tell someone, well you need to seek the gift of tongues, so you can have the witness of the spirit to be saved, is saying - you are not saved until you speak with the evidence of tongues, you are just twisting words, but the meaning is clear.

[/QUOTE]

I would tell someone to repent and be baptized in Jesus name and then to expect the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. At Pentecost those in the upper room didn't expect to speak in tongues, at least it doesn't seem that they did. When the Holy Ghost entered in they spake with tongues. I trust God will do his part if we repent and obey the gospel.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

It's not a contradiction, because you're equivocating the gift of tongues with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. They are not the same thing. One might never have the gift of tongues, but still be saved.

What I am referring to as the gift of tongues is the gifting of a prayer language, tongues or gift of tongues, that CAN come after receiving the spirit, which seems to be essentially what you are calling speaking in tongues.

So would you agree with this: One might never speak in tongues, but still be saved?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

What I am referring to as the gift of tongues is the gifting of a prayer language, tongues or gift of tongues, that CAN come after receiving the spirit, which seems to be essentially what you are calling speaking in tongues.

So would you agree with this: One might never speak in tongues, but still be saved?

No, the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is not the same as the gift of tongues. I'm pretty sure my previous post already addressed that.

Hang on, let me check.

Yep, I definitely wrote that exact same sentence.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Nobody is saying the gift of tongues is necessary to know if one is saved or not. You are arguing against a straw man.

No, I most certainly am not arguing against a straw man. Unless you have gone to a different type of OP churches than I did. It is a signature belief among the OP that unless you speak with tongues, you are not saved. Are you saying you don't believe that?

Answer me this question directly: One might never speak in tongues, but still be saved? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Esaias

You DO add to the scriptures, with this idea that all speaking in tongues is the gift of tongues. And you take away from the scriptures with your idea that people can receive the Spirit without them speaking in tongues as a result.

The Bible is clear, those who receive the Spirit speak in other tongues when it happens. There is not ONE INSTANCE in the book.of Acts of anyone receiving the Spirit and NOT speaking in tongues.

Really? Then what about this passage?

Acts 16: 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


Tell me where in that passage, after being saved, did they speak in tongues?