How many times did you ask God for the Holy Ghost?

[LadyRev]

Then I've been successful! :)

He definitely gives gifts, not as a reward for something we've earned, but because that's his nature. His gifts are always undeserved.

Now that doesn't mean, independent of his gift, that he doesn't expect things of us. He wants our devotion, trust and heart. He's a lover wooing us in.

Proudfather, continue to post. You won't like how everyone disagrees on here, some won't get into the fine details with you, others will. Then again, those who enjoy the details may feel like you aren't wanting to go there with them either. So, just stick around.

Of course His gifts are undeserved. Always have been, always will be. They most certainly can not be earned.

That being said, God still doesn't hand out all of His gifts to just anyone who asks simply because they have asked. If that were the case, then even a non-repentant satanist would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost if they were to ask for it.

God, in his love and mercy, does give many gifts without repentance. It rains on the just and on the unjust. However, when it comes to salvation and the indwelling of His Spirit, God has always had requirements.

[mfblume]

Noeticknight, I know some people have done with tongues what you claim and indeed gave it a bad name. But I only look at them and say, "By reason of whom the way of truths shall be evil spoken of." We cannot determine lack of veracity of doctrine by any abuse of it. So I do not agree with your assessment. It is considering doctrine subjectively instead of objectively. Regardless of how something is abused or not, we must find our source of the doctrine in exegetical study of the bible only.

Since anti-"tongues as initial evidence" people make such a concern over the abuses of those who propose tongues as initial evidence as their main point against the idea, this shows me a divergence away from the bible as "the" foundation for their concerns.

[mfblume]

Please elaborate, because if you are saying what I think you are saying then I am amazed!

I am saying that Occam's Razor does make the tongues of 1 Cor 14 to be the same tongues of Acts 2. Be amazed! You made a very good point with that.

[jfrog]

I am saying that Occam's Razor does make the tongues of 1 Cor 14 to be the same tongues of Acts 2. Be amazed! You made a very good point with that.

What about those of 1 Corinthians 12?

[mfblume]

What about those of 1 Corinthians 12?
Yes, included. ALL tongues, according to Occam's razor, unless I am missing something.

[LadyRev]

Hmmm...the idea of us asking God for His Spirit by faith and Him not giving it is a degradation of God's character.

I know the OP songbook on this subject note by note and it is egregious in it's representation of God.

ouden

The idea of us asking God for His Spirit without first having repented of everything that is contrary to God is ludicrous.

Its as ludicrous as saying that God is Love therefore He won't judge and condemn anyone to hell because He can't, its against His nature, for God is love.

[Brad Murphy]

I'm more of a Black Swan theory kind of guy... in that just because we haven't seen a black swan, doesn't mean that black swans do not exist...

[jfrog]

Yes, included. ALL tongues, according to Occam's razor, unless I am missing something.

Awesome. So you don't believe that all Christians speak with tongues as 1 Corinthans 12:30 states? (Which implies that tongues are not the only initial evidence of the Holy Ghost?)

[mfblume]

Acts 5:32 KJV ... the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.


What think ye of the context of the term OBEY? ASKING is obeying? I think not.

[mfblume]

Awesome. So you don't believe that all Christians speak with tongues as 1 Corinthans 12:30 states? (Which implies that tongues are not the only initial evidence of the Holy Ghost?)

No, not necessarily. I am saying Occam's Razor concludes that.

[jfrog]

No, not necessarily. I am saying Occam's Razor concludes that.

Okay :) I don't think I have a problem with Occam's Razor anymore... jkjkjk.

I still don't believe that it is a good proof for whether something is right or wrong. I still think like I always have that it is useful, I just don't think it should be used as proof or a trump argument. Its more of a study guide that doesn't always have to be followed.

[mfblume]

Okay :) I don't think I have a problem with Occam's Razor anymore... jkjkjk.

lolololol

Oh, but that means one case for Occam's Razor in regards to Holy Ghost baptism or indwelling conflicts with another case in regards to tongues.

Dr. Geoff Webb (scientist) did say, "more complex decision trees are shown to have - on average - for a variety of common learning tasks higher predictive accuracy than the less complex original decision trees"

[notofworks]

Acts 5:32 KJV ... the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.


What think ye of the context of the term OBEY? ASKING is obeying? I think not.



Why are you stuck on getting people to admit that people must "Obey" in order to receive the Holy Spirit? Who's ever said that people DON'T have to obey? The problem is....obey WHAT? You want the answer to that question to be a the agenda that agrees with your theology. But you can't make it something it's not.

[mfblume]

Anybody (ahem) else? Is ASKING obeying?

[mizpeh]

Anybody (ahem) else? Is ASKING obeying?

Believing, repenting, and being baptized is obeying.

[noeticknight]

Noeticknight, I know some people have done with tongues what you claim and indeed gave it a bad name. But I only look at them and say, "By reason of whom the way of truths shall be evil spoken of." We cannot determine lack of veracity of doctrine by any abuse of it. So I do not agree with your assessment. It is considering doctrine subjectively instead of objectively. Regardless of how something is abused or not, we must find our source of the doctrine in exegetical study of the bible only.

Since anti-"tongues as initial evidence" people make such a concern over the abuses of those who propose tongues as initial evidence as their main point against the idea, this shows me a divergence away from the bible as "the" foundation for their concerns.


Your response reminds me of a famous quote from Sun Tzu, "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak..." Are we trying to change the terrain now?

Of course, my original thoughts on this did stem from proper/improper interpretation of the scriptures. I do not concede to your assertion that my main point of contention here is the "abuse" of tongues. The inherent qualities of this teaching, and how they play out in the real world are, imo, definitely game for discussion. So yes, A. "Initial Evidence" could be incorrect Biblically. And B., "Initial Evidence" may be causing harm and damage.

Subjectivity doesn't necessarily invalidate a claim, and on the flip side, objectivity doesn't necessarily validate it.

[Jeffrey]

Mike,
What's the context of Acts 5. Civil disobedience. They respond saying obeying God is more important than obeying man. He basically called the Pharisees disobedient... when they heard this they were ready to kill Peter and Co.

Mizpeh, inserting a formula into this context is dishonest. But some things never change.

[noeticknight]

I'm more of a Black Swan theory kind of guy... in that just because we haven't seen a black swan, doesn't mean that black swans do not exist...


:D

Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. The problem occurs when evidence is presented, or, at least, more evidence than the other party is presenting...

My thing is, I don't presume to be the expert here. My questions are pretty basic, and my main argument is very simple. Signs and wonders still happen, but they are not requirements for making it past the Pearly Gates. I think there's plenty of scripture to support that, and very little to prop up IE, unless that is, black swans do exist, but God enjoys not telling us about it. :)

[easter]

When I first became saved I knew I had received the Holy Spirit.Took years to know the difference between the sealing of the Holy Spirit and to be Baptised in the Holy Spirit.

[mfblume]

Your response reminds me of a famous quote from Sun Tzu, "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak..." Are we trying to change the terrain now?

Of course, my original thoughts on this did stem from proper/improper interpretation of the scriptures. I do not concede to your assertion that my main point of contention here is the "abuse" of tongues. The inherent qualities of this teaching, and how they play out in the real world are, imo, definitely game for discussion. So yes, A. "Initial Evidence" could be incorrect Biblically. And B., "Initial Evidence" may be causing harm and damage.

Subjectivity doesn't necessarily invalidate a claim, and on the flip side, objectivity doesn't necessarily validate it.

My point is that objectivity is how we ascertain doctrine. Our foundation is the Word, not people's experiences. You mentioned holes in the initial evidence doctrine, but never stated what they were, and felt to emphasize the subjective angle of the issue. Though you may claim the doctrine is full of holes scripturally, what are they? Who really cares about subjective experiences in the end?

[mfblume]

Mike,
What's the context of Acts 5. Civil disobedience. They respond saying obeying God is more important than obeying man. He basically called the Pharisees disobedient... when they heard this they were ready to kill Peter and Co.

I do not think that is the context of the obedience in regards to the Spirit. Peter just preached the gospel. Reminds me of the steps Peter mentioned in Acts 2:38 preceding the reference to Holy Ghost baptism.

[mfblume]

Believing, repenting, and being baptized is obeying.

Right! That is repeated and repeated in Acts. It is what Peter would tell Cornelius TO DO, and that does not mean baptism must be done BEFORE Spirit baptism comes, though, since that did not occur in Acts 10 in that order. But the point is OBEY THE GOSPEL. And it is more than ASKING for the Spirit.

[Jeffrey]

Right! That is repeated and repeated in Acts. It is what Peter would tell Cornelius TO DO, and that does not mean baptism must be done BEFORE Spirit baptism comes, though, since that did not occur in Acts 10 in that order. But the point is OBEY THE GOSPEL. And it is more than ASKING for the Spirit.

Obey the Gospel? Huh?

You call 3-steps the Gospel?

Maybe we should go back and define what this common word, used in a distinct way by the Early church, "Gospel," really was.

Commands to be obeyed???

[Jeffrey]

I do not think that is the context of the obedience in regards to the Spirit. Peter just preached the gospel. Reminds me of the steps Peter mentioned in Acts 2:38 preceding the reference to Holy Ghost baptism.

Honestly, Mike?

It's in the immediate context of the story. Look at it for yourself.

You may continue to argue in others areas of these stories, but this one is right here!

[mfblume]

Obey the Gospel? Huh?

You call 3-steps the Gospel?
No.



Maybe we should go back and define what this common word, used in a distinct way by the Early church, "Gospel," really was.

I know what it was.


Commands to be obeyed???

No. lol

The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection. You OBEY THE GOSPEL by Acts 2:38. Acts 2:38 is obedience to the gospel, not the gospel. How do you obey the news about death, burial and resurrection? The jews heard the gospel and asked what to do about it. How is that to be obeyed? Peter told them what to do. That was the obedience required.

[mfblume]

Honestly, Mike?

It's in the immediate context of the story. Look at it for yourself.

You may continue to argue in others areas of these stories, but this one is right here!

You are misapplying the subject of the obedience. The actual context shows OBEDIENCE TO MEN OR OBEDIENCE TO GOD limited to Peter's situation. He was not directing his words to the Jews as though they disbelieved, though we both know that was true. It was not Peter's point, though. It is not reflecting on the Jews who did not believe, but on whether or not Peter and John would obey God rather than men. Peter was simply saying I must continue to believe as I have, for the Spirit which is given to those who obey the Lord, and has done these wonders amongst us, will continue to do wonders if we continue to obey God and not you Jews.

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

[jfrog]

Right! That is repeated and repeated in Acts. It is what Peter would tell Cornelius TO DO, and that does not mean baptism must be done BEFORE Spirit baptism comes, though, since that did not occur in Acts 10 in that order. But the point is OBEY THE GOSPEL. And it is more than ASKING for the Spirit.

Obeying the gospel has nothing to do with receiving the Holy Ghost. Obeying the gospel is repentance and baptism. Receiving the Holy Ghost is not a command to be obeyed but a gift that God has promised to those that obey the gospel.

So the question is: should we procede to ask God for that which he has promised us? Personally, I see nothing wrong with asking a few times. However, when someone begs and pleads with God for something that God has promised to give, that either shows a lack of faith that God might not fulfill his promise or it brings doubt to the person that "maybe I didn't really obey; that maybe I didn't really repent."

All that isn't my main point though. I don't think begging for the Holy Ghost is where Pentecostalism has went wrong. I think it is a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. I think the problem with Pentecostalism is that it emphasizes the Holy Ghost as something that we must do. The Holy Ghost is not anything we must do. It is a gift that God gives. So just because someone doesn't receive the gift of the Holy Ghost immedietly doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing something wrong. All it means is that God had decided not to give them the promise just yet. Even if they haven't received it 20 years later doesn't mean that have done something wrong. All it means is that God has not given it yet. Even if they haven't received it by the time they die doesn't mean they did something wrong. All it means is that God has not given it yet and we know that not even death can keep God from keeping his promises!

The only other issue is whether tongues are THE initial evidence of the Holy Ghost...

[mfblume]

Obeying the gospel has nothing to do with receiving the Holy Ghost. Obeying the gospel is repentance and baptism. Receiving the Holy Ghost is not a command to be obeyed but a gift that God has promised to those that obey the gospel.

Strawman. I never said receiving the Holy Ghost is a command. I said that obedience to the Gospel causes God to give us the Holy Ghost. We REPENT, GET BAPTIZED and GOD GIVES the Spirit.

So the question is: should we procede to ask God for that which he has promised us?

Yes!

Luk 11:13 KJV 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?


Personally, I see nothing wrong with asking a few times. However, when someone begs and pleads with God for something that God has promised to give, that either shows a lack of faith that God might not fulfill his promise or it brings doubt to the person that "maybe I didn't really obey; that maybe I didn't really repent."

Or it means the person is stubborn and refuses to repent over sin they are not willing to repent over, and thinks God does not see that. That is what happened to me.

All that isn't my main point though. I don't think begging for the Holy Ghost is where Pentecostalism has went wrong. I think it is a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. I think the problem with Pentecostalism is that it emphasizes the Holy Ghost as something that we must do.

I agree. It is not something we must do. How can we give ourselves the Holy Ghost?

The Holy Ghost is not anything we must do. It is a gift that God gives. So just because someone doesn't receive the gift of the Holy Ghost immedietly doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing something wrong.

Agreed. But it could be, but not in every case.

All it means is that God had decided not to give them the promise just yet. Even if they haven't received it 20 years later doesn't mean that have done something wrong. All it means is that God has not given it yet.

I disagree with that overview, since the Holy Ghost was already poured out into the world. We just need to obey in order to get it. God is always ready to give it if we simply ask and obey.

Even if they haven't received it by the time they die doesn't mean they did something wrong.

In some cases, I agree, but not all.

[notofworks]

Strawman. I never said receiving the Holy Ghost is a command. I said that obedience to the Gospel causes God to give us the Holy Ghost. We REPENT, GET BAPTIZED and GOD GIVES the Spirit.

Yes!

Luk 11:13 KJV 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?


Or it means the person is stubborn and refuses to repent over sin they are not willing to repent over, and thinks God does not see that. That is what happened to me.

I agree. It is not something we must do. How can we give ourselves the Holy Ghost?

Agreed. But it could be, but not in every case.

I disagree with that overview, since the Holy Ghost was already poured out into the world. We just need to obey in order to get it. God is always ready to give it if we simply ask and obey.

In some cases, I agree, but not all.


Just wanted to let you know that you have now been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for irresponsibly using the word "Strawman" in arguments in which you really can't give a good response, as well as overall usage of the word. Congratulations!!!

Is this the only thing you can say when disagree? I think I'm gonna do a search and see how many times you've used it.

And I'm still waiting for that verse.

[notofworks]

Ok, I did a search and it's too many to count. The name "Mfblume" repeatedly came up!:lol But the last 3 people to use it are you, Prax, and EB. Great company!!

[jfrog]

Strawman. I never said receiving the Holy Ghost is a command. I said that obedience to the Gospel causes God to give us the Holy Ghost. We REPENT, GET BAPTIZED and GOD GIVES the Spirit.



Yes!

Luk 11:13 KJV 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?




Or it means the person is stubborn and refuses to repent over sin they are not willing to repent over, and thinks God does not see that. That is what happened to me.



I agree. It is not something we must do. How can we give ourselves the Holy Ghost?



Agreed. But it could be, but not in every case.



I disagree with that overview, since the Holy Ghost was already poured out into the world. We just need to obey in order to get it. God is always ready to give it if we simply ask and obey.



In some cases, I agree, but not all.

Yes, there are some people who really do have sin in their lives and don't get the Holy Ghost because of that. I'm all for self examination at anytime! However, just because one doesn't receive the Holy Ghost doesn't mean that they must find something wrong when they self examine themselves. Self examination should be objective. Pentecostalism doesn't teach it as such. Pentecostalism says that if you don't receive the Holy Ghost then there is something wrong with you. Instead it should be: examine yourself to see if there MIGHT BE something holding you back from the Holy Ghost.

The statement of yours I bolded is the most important. For those special cases of people that don't do anything wrong but die without the Holy Ghost, (you already conceded that they exist by saying you agree in some cases), then how will God fulfill his promise of giving the Holy Spirit to them?

EDIT: One other question for you blume: You provided a scripture that mentioned asking for the Holy Ghost and I even said I have no problem with someone asking a few times, but where is the scripture for someone begging God for the Holy Ghost?

[mfblume]

Yes, there are some people who really do have sin in their lives and don't get the Holy Ghost because of that. I'm all for self examination at anytime!

And that is all I have been saying, really.

However, just because one doesn't receive the Holy Ghost doesn't mean that they must find something wrong when they self examine themselves.

Right!

Self examination should be objective. Pentecostalism doesn't teach it as such.

I know where you are coming from.

Pentecostalism says that if you don't receive the Holy Ghost then there is something wrong with you. Instead it should be: examine yourself to see if there might be something holding you back from the Holy Ghost.
I could not agree more.


The statement of yours I bolded is the most important. For those special cases of people that don't do anything wrong, (you already conceded that they exist by saying you agree in some cases), then how will God fulfill his promise of giving the Holy Spirit to them?

It could be a simple introversion, too. But I always encourage people to keep seeking and believing and not think there is something wrong if they sincerely examine themselves and see nothing wrong. I encourage GOD WILL GIVE HIS SPIRIT! And I do not say nor believe they are lost, though.

[jfrog]

And that is all I have been saying, really.



Right!



I know where you are coming from.


I could not agree more.



It could be a simple introversion, too. But I always encourage people to keep seeking and believing and not think there is something wrong if they sincerely examine themselves and see nothing wrong. I encourage GOD WILL GIVE HIS SPIRIT! And I do not say nor believe they are lost, though.

:thumbsup

EDIT: It's amazing to me how the way people word things and how placing emphasis in different spots can cause such major disagreements... but I'm glad we figured it out and reached a consensus. It's nice to end up agreeing in the end :)

[jfrog]

Oh, one other thing blume. I'm not sure how biblical it is to seek the Holy Ghost, at least by how seeking is practiced in many Pentecostal services. I know its biblical and even reasonable to ask God for it and even to desire it, however, I'm not sure the bible teaches its something that should be sought after in the manner that Pentecostal churches encourage people to seek. What are your thoughts?

[easter]

How about this perspective on receiving the Holy Ghost...

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

All believers are promised the Holy Ghost

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

The Holy Ghost draws men to Christ so there would be no reason to believe a man would have to beg for the Holy Ghost because really He comes to man first by way of convicting the man of his sin and leading the man to Christ.This we know.
Where I'm going with this is some Christians stop there after receiving salvation and do not have the understanding that yes they are sealed by the Holy Ghost but there is a difference between that and being baptised in the Holy Ghost.
Care to clarify for me jfrog?

[jfrog]

How about this perspective on receiving the Holy Ghost...

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

All believers are promised the Holy Ghost

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

The Holy Ghost draws men to Christ so there would be no reason to believe a man would have to beg for the Holy Ghost because really He comes to man first by way of convicting the man of his sin and leading the man to Christ.This we know.
Where I'm going with this is some Christians stop there after receiving salvation and do not have the understanding that yes they are sealed by the Holy Ghost but there is a difference between that and being baptised in the Holy Ghost.
Care to clarify for me jfrog?

I have only been speaking of the type of Holy Ghost that is spoken of in Acts 2:38. If you take Acts 2:38 to be about the baptism of the Holy Ghost then that is what I have been speaking of. If you take Acts 2:38 to mean the sealing of the Holy Ghost then that is what I have been speaking of.

I have been posting with the impression that Acts 2:38 was about the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have not discussed whether there are two types of Holy Ghost, the baptism and the sealing or whether there is just one type of Holy Ghost.

[easter]

I have only been speaking of the type of Holy Ghost that is spoken of in Acts 2:38. If you take Acts 2:38 to be about the baptism of the Holy Ghost then that is what I have been speaking of. If you take Acts 2:38 to mean the sealing of the Holy Ghost then that is what I have been speaking of.

I have been posting with the impression that Acts 2:38 was about the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have not discussed whether there are two types of Holy Ghost, the baptism and the sealing or whether there is just one type of Holy Ghost.

No there is only one Holy Ghost.I'm trying to figure out why some are only sealed and don't receive nothing more.Like the gifts and some Christians this day and time don't believe the gifts are still operating.

[notofworks]

Ok, so if the statement is...having sin in your life can keep you from getting the Holy Ghost, would it be an automatic that if one has sin in his/her life, one cannot receive the Holy Ghost?

[jfrog]

No there is only one Holy Ghost.I'm trying to figure out why some are only sealed and don't receive nothing more.Like the gifts and some Christians this day and time don't believe the gifts are still operating.

Is there anything that someone can do to get God to give them more? If so, what?

[easter]

Is there anything that someone can do to get God to give them more? If so, what?

Pray! Thank You jfrog

[jfrog]

Pray! Thank You jfrog

:) God sometimes says no though, doesn't he? Do you think he might could say no to that kind of prayer also? If he might say no, then what should a persons reaction to that kind of an unanswered prayer be?

[noeticknight]

My point is that objectivity is how we ascertain doctrine. Our foundation is the Word, not people's experiences. You mentioned holes in the initial evidence doctrine, but never stated what they were, and felt to emphasize the subjective angle of the issue. Though you may claim the doctrine is full of holes scripturally, what are they? Who really cares about subjective experiences in the end?


And my point is that you aren’t really confronting the concerns posted on this thread. It’s very crafty of you trying to reframe my argument and all, but I would urge you to come back to the central premise of the discussion: Is this doctrine correct scripturally, logically, and historically? Are you uncomfortable engaging people’s “subjective” experiences as it pertains to IE? Because many of the observations mentioned on this thread are in fact, “objective,” whether you acknowledge it or not. Witnessing an account of someone “seeking” the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues for 18 years is actually quite objective, albeit, painful and disheartening. But like you said, “Who really cares about “subjective” experiences in the end,” right?

While we do not use these observations to exclusively construct a dogma or belief, we can certainly still “objectively” evaluate the conflicts and match them with the Early Church experiences. Since they clearly do not neatly fit, I find it interesting that you want to label it as a case study in abuse. It appears you do not have adequate answers for the dilemmas demonstrated on this thread, so to me, it becomes abundantly clear why you are attempting to divert the topic back to a “Bible only” conversation. Which begs me to ask: Since I think I know where you stand on teachings against facial hair and other so-called “outward standards of righteousness,” would it be fair to say that you consider the logical and social dynamics of these teachings in tandem with scriptures? If yes, then why are you suddenly disposed to calling that method invalid as pertaining to this discussion?

Now, as regarding your thoughts on this thing being bullet proof, and stating that your conclusion is the most parsimonious…well, let’s just say PR campaigns can only carry the company so far. The scriptures are vague at best on IE, and it is simply an illusion that IE is rock solid in the scriptures. If it was, you would have no problem squelching the tides of confusion and frustration that constantly rock the boat of belief. Ironically, the holes in this doctrine, (assumption, assumption, assumption) are also its strength. With so much assumption, I am beginning to believe that IE is similar to the theory of macro-evolution, in terms of being unfalsifiable. I am also still struggling to understand how IE can be considered any or all of the following:
1. A normative experience for every believer
2. A pattern instead of informative narration
3. A viable teaching (since the IE advocate constrains us to accept it without teaching from the Apostles).
4. A differentiation between multiple types of “tongues.”
5. A continuation of Early Church history (since its architect lived and died last century).
5. A true gift given by a sovereign God (since it implies that the receiver must obtain something required).

Look Blume, let me just say this: I can respect your opinion on the matter, but personally, I will not throw others under the bus because they do not exhibit the Sign.

[easter]

:) God sometimes says no though, doesn't he? Do you think he might could say no to that kind of prayer also? If he might say no, then what should a persons reaction to that kind of an unanswered prayer be?

Well you know I imagine God does see some of his children as impatient so to teach them to wait on the good things of God one must continue to patiently pray knowing that in God's time I'll get this gift.If not, then in eternity I will not need this gift because then I will be face to face :nod

[jfrog]

And my point is that you aren’t really confronting the concerns posted on this thread. It’s very crafty of you trying to reframe my argument and all, but I would urge you to come back to the central premise of the discussion: Is this doctrine correct scripturally, logically, and historically? Are you uncomfortable engaging people’s “subjective” experiences as it pertains to IE? Because many of the observations mentioned on this thread are in fact, “objective,” whether you acknowledge it or not. Witnessing an account of someone “seeking” the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues for 18 years is actually quite objective, albeit, painful and disheartening. But like you said, “Who really cares about “subjective” experiences in the end,” right?

While we do not use these observations to exclusively construct a dogma or belief, we can certainly still “objectively” evaluate the conflicts and match them with the Early Church experiences. Since they clearly do not neatly fit, I find it interesting that you want to label it as a case study in abuse. It appears you do not have adequate answers for the dilemmas demonstrated on this thread, so to me, it becomes abundantly clear why you are attempting to divert the topic back to a “Bible only” conversation. Which begs me to ask: Since I think I know where you stand on teachings against facial hair and other so-called “outward standards of righteousness,” would it be fair to say that you consider the logical and social dynamics of these teachings in tandem with scriptures? If yes, then why are you suddenly disposed to calling that method invalid as pertaining to this discussion?

Now, as regarding your thoughts on this thing being bullet proof, and stating that your conclusion is the most parsimonious…well, let’s just say PR campaigns can only carry the company so far. The scriptures are vague at best on IE, and it is simply an illusion that IE is rock solid in the scriptures. If it was, you would have no problem squelching the tides of confusion and frustration that constantly rock the boat of belief. Ironically, the holes in this doctrine, (assumption, assumption, assumption) are also its strength. With so much assumption, I am beginning to believe that IE is similar to the theory of macro-evolution, in terms of being unfalsifiable. I am also still struggling to understand how IE can be considered any or all of the following:
1. A normative experience for every believer
2. A pattern instead of informative narration
3. A viable teaching (since the IE advocate constrains us to accept it without teaching from the Apostles).
4. A differentiation between multiple types of “tongues.”
5. A continuation of Early Church history (since its architect lived and died last century).
5. A true gift given by a sovereign God (since it implies that the receiver must obtain something required).

Look Blume, let me just say this: I can respect your opinion on the matter, but personally, I will not throw others under the bus because they do not exhibit the Sign.

While your post was great, albeit confrontational ;) I think Blume has already admitted to not viewing those as unsaved who do not speak in tongues.

And that is all I have been saying, really.



Right!



I know where you are coming from.


I could not agree more.



It could be a simple introversion, too. But I always encourage people to keep seeking and believing and not think there is something wrong if they sincerely examine themselves and see nothing wrong. I encourage GOD WILL GIVE HIS SPIRIT! And I do not say nor believe they are lost, though.

[jfrog]

Well you know I imagine God does see some of his children as impatient so to teach them to wait on the good things of God one must continue to patiently pray knowing that in God's time I'll get this gift.If not, then in eternity I will not need this gift because then I will be face to face :nod

:) Thank you! Your outlook is very refreshing!

[noeticknight]

While your post was great, albeit confrontational ;) I think Blume has already admitted to not viewing those as unsaved who do not speak in tongues.


I prefer, engaging over confrontational. :)

And btw, I do respect and appreciate Blume's contributions to the forum. He's a thoughtful poster.

And hey, this is a good thread! You start good threads jfrog!

[jfrog]

I prefer, engaging over confrontational. :)

And btw, I do respect and appreciate Blume's contributions to the forum. He's a thoughtful poster.

And hey, this is a good thread! You start good threads jfrog!

Your post was both... lol

And yes, I respect Blume's contributions too. Usually ;)

[noeticknight]

Your post was both... lol




Never personal though.

Btw, and since it's your thread, where do you officially stand on "Initial Evidence?" (if you don't mind me asking)

[easter]

:) Thank you! Your outlook is very refreshing!

Your welcome!
I know some believe that if you don't have the evidence of speaking in tongue that the Holy spirit has not indwelled a person.I know this is in scripture but I also know that there is no time frame with God.Some may speak an unknown tongue right off and some may not for awhile.The scripture don't really put a certain time frame on the evidence of the indwelling by speaking in unknown tongue because one day with the Lord is as a thousand here and if that's the case with me then I will be face to face :rolleyes2 There is a story that comes to mind....

Luke 18
The Parable of the Persistent Widow
1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' "

I know this story is not about receiving gifts but it does tell me to keep praying and not give up!

Acts 2:38 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.

I know I have the gift which is the Holy Ghost and now I will continue to pray that "He" might give me one of "His" nine gifts.I would be happy with just one!

[jfrog]

Never personal though.

Btw, and since it's your thread, where do you officially stand on "Initial Evidence?" (if you don't mind me asking)

I don't believe in initial evidence and I'm starting to think there isn't a good way to explain the verses in Acts about the Holy Ghost. It's like no matter which door I take to try and explain the accounts of the Holy Ghost in Acts I am always left with a less than great explanation.

[noeticknight]

I don't believe in initial evidence and I'm starting to think there isn't a good way to explain the verses in Acts about the Holy Ghost. It's like no matter which door I take to try and explain the accounts of the Holy Ghost in Acts I am always left with a less than great explanation.


Hence, the debates continue. Unfortunately, the scriptures are very ambiguous about it, otherwise, we could get a consensus on this thing...


NOT! :winkgrin

[easter]

I don't believe in initial evidence and I'm starting to think there isn't a good way to explain the verses in Acts about the Holy Ghost. It's like no matter which door I take to try and explain the accounts of the Holy Ghost in Acts I am always left with a less than great explanation.

Please do continue explaining Acts 2
I'm not debating I am trying to understand on a different view

[jfrog]

Hence, the debates continue. Unfortunately, the scriptures are very ambiguous about it, otherwise, we could get a consensus on this thing...


NOT! :winkgrin

Haha.

[jfrog]

Please do continue explaining Acts 2
I'm not debating I am trying to understand on a different view

I'll elaborate on my current understanding. Though I must warn you, I am not a Christian...

[jfrog]

Acts 8

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

This shows that receiving the Holy Ghost can happen post baptism. This is a very important concept. This shows that what many churches speak of as receiving the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as what the book of Acts is speaking of when it talks about receiving the Holy Ghost (because what they talk about is never a post baptism reception of the Holy Ghost).

So now we have our first major piece to the puzzle.

[Jack Shephard]

Whoa lots of pages here. I haven't posted on this thread in several days. Is the majority here saying tongues=HS or that the HS enters at acceptance of Jesus as saviour?

[jfrog]

easter, now its time for our next puzzle piece.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what this verse is about. But the important part for us is that some of those that were filled with the Holy Ghost had already been filled in Acts 2. This brings us to our second puzzle piece: The Holy Ghost in Acts can fill the same person multiple times.

[Jack Shephard]

easter, now its time for our next puzzle piece.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what this verse is about. But the important part for us is that some of those that were filled with the Holy Ghost had already been filled in Acts 2. This brings us to our second puzzle piece: The Holy Ghost in Acts can fill the same person multiple times.

I know that this wasn't post for ME, but I want to respond. I read this grammatically, or so I was taught. The part in bold is between a semi-colon and a comma. When that happens the statement generally descridbes something. Like "David was wearing a hat, a blue hat, and it was awful and huge..." the statement in between the puncuation can be left out, but you might not get all the details if you omit it. So to me the verse above read like this. "And they prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; OH AND THEY WERE FILLED WITH THE HOLYGHOST, (and because of the that) they spake with boldness" Of course I edited it, but that is how I read it basically. I don't think it was "they were speaking in tongues, so they spake with boldness." That wouldn't make much sense. Just saying...

[notofworks]

Whoa lots of pages here. I haven't posted on this thread in several days. Is the majority here saying tongues=HS or that the HS enters at acceptance of Jesus as saviour?


I have no interest in the majority but the correct people, the people that understand the depth of the grace of Jesus Christ, are saying that the Holy Spirit infills us when we believe on Christ.

[mizpeh]

I have no interest in the majority but the correct people, the people that understand the depth of the grace of Jesus Christ, are saying that the Holy Spirit infills us when we believe on Christ.
How do you explain those clear examples in the book of Acts of believers who do not receive the Spirit when then believe but have to wait? Like Acts 8, the Samaritans. Or Acts 19, the disciples in Ephesus. Or the apostle Paul?

And how do you explain Paul's question in Acts 19 when he asked the disciples if they had received the Spirit when/since they believed.

[notofworks]

How do you explain those clear examples in the book of Acts of believers who do not receive the Spirit when then believe but have to wait? Like Acts 8, the Samaritans. Or Acts 19, the disciples in Ephesus. Or the apostle Paul?

And how do you explain Paul's question in Acts 19 when he asked the disciples if they had received the Spirit when/since they believed.


"Since they believed". Believed what?

[Jack Shephard]

How do you explain those clear examples in the book of Acts of believers who do not receive the Spirit when then believe but have to wait? Like Acts 8, the Samaritans. Or Acts 19, the disciples in Ephesus. Or the apostle Paul?

And how do you explain Paul's question in Acts 19 when he asked the disciples if they had received the Spirit when/since they believed.

Many of these "in-fillings by tnogues" are nothing more than episodes of tongues apperance in ones life and not the singular evidence of the HG actually filling a person. Perhaps should be a sign to th unbeliever. But it is the picture that hs been painted by leadership for years, but it is NOT the actuality, IMO.

[mizpeh]

Many of these "in-fillings by tnogues" are nothing more than episodes of tongues apperance in ones life and not the singular evidence of the HG actually filling a person. Perhaps should be a sign to th unbeliever. But it is the picture that hs been painted by leadership for years, but it is NOT the actuality, IMO.You really didn't answer the questions I asked. I'm trying to go by what we find in the Bible. Those infillings were "initial infillings" and you're saying that tongues "just happened". What do you base your opinion on?

Are you saying also that tongues just sort of happened in Acts 2 and that Peter was off base when he surmised that the Gentiles in Acts 10 had received the Holy Spirit because he heard them speaking with tongues?

How is someone suppose to know when (the exact moment) they have been baptized with the Holy Spirit? The early church disciples in the book of Acts knew, why can't we know?

[jfrog]

How do you explain those clear examples in the book of Acts of believers who do not receive the Spirit when then believe but have to wait? Like Acts 8, the Samaritans. Or Acts 19, the disciples in Ephesus. Or the apostle Paul?

And how do you explain Paul's question in Acts 19 when he asked the disciples if they had received the Spirit when/since they believed.

The Holy Ghost spoken of in Acts is definently post belief. Acts 19 is just further evidence of the Holy Ghost being post belief.

[easter]

I'll elaborate on my current understanding. Though I must warn you, I am not a Christian...

jfrog I do appreciate you explaining God's word.Although I know you say your not a Christian but you study the words of Christ.You know Paul wasn't a Christian to start with and he ended up being a Christian,perhaps you will.


Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


In this passage the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit was immediate.The question some may wonder is why does the Spirit come on some with evidence and some struggle within themselves to receive the full things of God.

jfrog forgive me for asking but if your not a christian then what have you put your faith in?

[noeticknight]

How do you explain those clear examples in the book of Acts of believers who do not receive the Spirit when then believe but have to wait? Like Acts 8, the Samaritans. Or Acts 19, the disciples in Ephesus. Or the apostle Paul?

And how do you explain Paul's question in Acts 19 when he asked the disciples if they had received the Spirit when/since they believed.

I'm trying to go by what we find in the Bible. Those infillings were "initial infillings" and you're saying that tongues "just happened". What do you base your opinion on?

Are you saying also that tongues just sort of happened in Acts 2 and that Peter was off base when he surmised that the Gentiles in Acts 10 had received the Holy Spirit because he heard them speaking with tongues?



You are arguing that Spirit baptism is subsequent to, or distinct from faith/conversion to Christ. The four scenarios you mentioned are too ambiguous to prove such claims. Let me explain:

Acts 2 is the initial outpouring of God’s prophetic promise which was made available to all believers, and included a simultaneous display of tongues. This is significant in and of itself for several reasons, and since no one had experienced this before, we must draw our conclusions from elsewhere in the scriptures.

Acts 10 does not fully support your view because hearing/believing the Gospel and the introduction of the Holy Spirit appear to occur at the same time.

Acts 19 is not really a strong case either. John’s disciples had not been fully apprised of the Gospel message, but when they did hear, the Holy Spirit moved on them. Btw, they exhibited multiple signs, and we could reasonably conclude they were synonymous with the spiritual gifts Paul mentions in the epistles. Adino has eloquently demonstrated in the scriptures that these gifts can be “stirred” and activated by “the laying of hands” of the Apostles.

Acts 8 is your best bet. However, it doesn’t explicitly mention “tongues” as being present. To push the issue in spite of such ambiguity with no additional teaching from other sources, seems to be an abuse of proper scriptural hermeneutics imo.

[noeticknight]

How is someone suppose to know when (the exact moment) they have been baptized with the Holy Spirit? The early church disciples in the book of Acts knew, why can't we know?


You never really answered my question regarding the centurion and Jesus. Why didn't the centurion ask Jesus, "How am I supposed to know that you healed my servant?" (post #53)

How do you know you have received forgiveness?
How do you know you have received eternal life?
How do you know that the Gospel is true, and that Jesus rose from the dead?

Do you require a sign for these things also?

[jfrog]

jfrog I do appreciate you explaining God's word.Although I know you say your not a Christian but you study the words of Christ.You know Paul wasn't a Christian to start with and he ended up being a Christian,perhaps you will.


Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


In this passage the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit was immediate.The question some may wonder is why does the Spirit come on some with evidence and some struggle within themselves to receive the full things of God.

jfrog forgive me for asking but if your not a christian then what have you put your faith in?

I believe in God but I have no idea who that God is or what he is like...

As far as your analysis of Acts 19, I would like to offer one critique. They had to believe before they were baptized and they were baptized before they received the Holy Ghost. In fact, I don't think they could have immediately received the Holy Ghost because there had to have been a brief moment between the time they were baptized and the time Paul laid his hands on them. I think that brief moment between baptism and Paul laying his hands on them is enough to show that the Holy Ghost in Acts 19 was received post belief.

[Isaiah]

The Holy Spirit is not given at faith. You have to ask for the Holy Spirit to come into your life.



It can be as simple as repenting of your sins and asking Jesus to come into your heart.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sister. Keep on preaching it!

[Isaiah]

INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM

Isaiah prophesied, "With stammering lips and ANOTHER TONGUE will he speak to this people." Is. 28:11. In the great commission, Jesus said, "And these signs shall follow them that believe...they shall speak with NEW TONGUES." Mark 16:17.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. As the sound of wind blowing is the evidence of its presence, so is the sound of speaking in tongues evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism.

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a SOUND from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:14. The initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, upon the 120 disciples, was witnessed by devout Jews, out of every nation. They said one to another, "Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Acts 2:6-8. Then Peter preached, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (See Joel 2:28); And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh...Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he (Jesus) hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." Acts 2:1&33. Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues when they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. “They of the circumcision which believe were astonished.. .because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES..." Acts 10:4548. Peter confirmed,"...The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning." Acts 11:15. The believers at Ephesus spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost baptism. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake in tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:1-6. When the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, there was a miraculous evidence of God’s power which exceeded the miracles and signs already experienced. This prompted Simon the sorcerer to offer money to buy this power: that on whomsoever he laid hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. According to the Biblical signs that follow believers, and the experiences received at Pentecost, Cesarea and Ephesus, there should be no doubt that the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost with the same initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Acts 8:5-25.

The apostle Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. Acts 9:17, I Cor. 14:18.

History also proves that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism in the early church, and has not ceased to be a Biblical experience among believers today.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972 Edition, Vol. 22, p. 75 -Tongue-speaking manifested itself early in the Christian experience. At Pentecost (Acts 2) the gift appeared as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which marked the character of the earliest Christians...During later church history, glossolalia (speaking in tongues) occurred among the mendicant friars of the 13th century, little prophets of Cevennes, the Jansenists, and the Irvingites. Tongues were found also among the early Quakers, as well as among the converts of John Wesley and George Whitefield... In modern times glossolalia has been found chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups. The Saturday Evening Post, May 16, 1964, p.32 - Praying in tongues has recurred at intervals throughout the Christian era, although it did not affect large masses until early in this century.

Its advocates were quickly expelled from the established churches, whereupon they established the Pentecostal churches. For 50 years it remained the almost exclusive possession of the Pentecostal churches.

Newsweek, June 25, 1973, p.80 - The Pentecostal phenomenon has spread with surprising speed through all of the world’s major Christian churches. Why did God choose tongues for the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism? Note the following reasons:

1. Isaiah asked, "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counselor hath taught Him?" Is. 40:13. God is sovereign to choose as He will without being accountable to anyone!

2. Such a marvelous experience as the baptism of the Holy Ghost demands a marvelous evidence. So God chase to speak through the believer in a language foreign to him as the outward evidence of the marvelous infilling of the Holy Ghost!

3. The tongue is the most unruly member of the body and full of deadly poison, which no man can tame. It is a world of iniquity and is set on fire of hell. Therefore, the tongue is capable of defiling the entire body. James 3:6. Before man can be fully sanctified, the tongue, which defileth, must be brought under control. Who can tame the tongue? James compares the tongue to the bit in a horse’s mouth which gives the driver complete control. James 3:3. So whoever controls the tongue controls the person. How beautiful is this glorious truth! God chose tongues, as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism, to symbolize His complete control of a believer. And this is important for the sanctification of the individual’s body.

4. Although other signs were manifested at Pentecost, God chose tongues for the uniform sign of the Holy Spirit baptism. (Compare Acts 2:2-4, 10:46, 19:6.) Jesus said that this SIGN shall follow every believer of the gospel. Mark 16:16,17. The Jews were convinced that the Gentiles at Cesarea had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES. Acts 10:45-47.

[Isaiah]

GIFT OF TONGUES IN THE CHURCH

"For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL BAPTIZED into one body." I Cor. 12:13. “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." I Cor. 12:4. The gifts of the Spirit are as follows: the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the gifts of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. But by one and the selfsame Spirit, God divides these gifts severally to every man as He will. I Cor. 12:8-11.

Since the gift of tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:7,11), it cannot operate in a person without the Holy Ghost being resident within him. Therefore this gift is only given to believers who have been baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit evidenced by Tongue-speaking. The gift of tongues is different from the tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Compare the following:

1. These tongues differ in purpose. The gift of tongues, along with the gift of interpretation of tongues, has been given to some in the church to convey a message from God to the congregation as the need requires. I Cor. 12:7, 27,28. But the tongues, as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, is the believer’s personal experience with God, and is not designed to convey a message to the church.

2. Also these tongues differ in operation. The gift of tongues in the church is limited to two or three messages, and that by course; and one must interpret. I Cor. 14:27. But the tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism is an unlimited manifestation and requires no interpretation. Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, EXCEPT he interpret, that the church may receive edifying." I Cor. 14:4,5. Certainly the apostle did not try to discredit or do away with the importance of tongues. Because, in comparison, he illustrated that the less honorable members of the body are necessary, and receive more abundant honor. I Cor. 12:22,23. Each gift of the Spirit has its proper time and place in the church, and when tongues are interpreted they become as important as prophecy! So Paul emphasized, "...Let all things be done unto edifying." I Cor. 14:26. To edify the church, the gift of tongues must be coupled with the gift of interpretation of tongues. To avoid confusion, Paul gave instructions to follow for the use of tongues and interpretation of tongues in the church. (See I Cor. 14:27.) He said, "If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church: and let him speak to himself, and to God." I Cor. 14:28. Also he said, "IN THE CHURCH I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." I Cor. 14:19. It is better for the edification of the church to speak five words of understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue without a divinely inspired interpretation. However, lest anyone misunderstand the importance of tongues, Paul concluded, "Wherefore brethern, covet to prophesy, and FORBID NOT TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES." I Cor. 14:39.

"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not..." I Cor. 14:22. This Scripture deals with God’s speaking to man. (See I Cor. 14:21.) Of course, the believer should know when the Lord speaks, whether by tongues or not. But as a proof to the unbeliever, or anyone who doubts the Word of God, tongues are manifested for a miraculous sign of His presence.

Paul asked the question, "Do all speak with tongues" I Cor. 12:30. The context of this Scripture requires a negative answer, because Paul is discussing tongues as a gift of the Spirit only, and not as the evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. (See I Cor. 12:28.) The gift of tongues is in addition to the tongues experienced with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. (By the same rule, the gift of faith is in addition to the measure of faith given a person to be saved. Compare Ram. 12:3, I Cor. 12:9.) So everyone may not receive the gift of tongues. But in every case, where the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism is recorded, "ALL" spoke in tongues. (For examples see Acts 2:4, 10:44, 19:7.)

[Isaiah]

PERSONAL DEVOTION TO GOD

Tongues are also manifested in a believer’s personal life of prayer and worship. They serve as a means of his secret communication with God in the Spirit. These tongues are not meant to be understood by men; therefore, they need no interpretation. "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." I Cor. 14:2. "The Spirit itself maketh intercession far us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Rom. 8:26. Paul said, "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." I Cor.14:14,15.

These devotional tongues are also for the personal edification of the believer. They are for self-encouragement and uplifting of his spirit. Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..." I Cor. 14:4. So the apostle gladly stated, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." I Cor. 14:18.

How long will tongues continue to be manifested? "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." I Cor. 13:8-10. The phrase, "when that which is perfect is come," is translated from the Greek phrase "to teleion". The word "teleion" is a singular neuter term which refers to Jesus Christ. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p.618, defines the phrase “to teleion” as used in I Cor. 13:10: "The perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven." Paul said, "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then (when that which is perfect is come) shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor. 13:12. When the church, having reached her state of perfection, stands face to face in the presence of God, there will be no need for prophecies, tongues and knowledge. But until that which is perfect (Jesus Christ) is come, that which is in part will remain. And as long as there remains prophecies and knowledge, tongues shall not cease. So Paul instructed the church to COME BEHIND IN NO GIFT, WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. I Cor. 1:7.

And I'm done.... :thumbsup

[easter]

I believe in God but I have no idea who that God is or what he is like...

As far as your analysis of Acts 19, I would like to offer one critique. They had to believe before they were baptized and they were baptized before they received the Holy Ghost. In fact, I don't think they could have immediately received the Holy Ghost because there had to have been a brief moment between the time they were baptized and the time Paul laid his hands on them. I think that brief moment between baptism and Paul laying his hands on them is enough to show that the Holy Ghost in Acts 19 was received post belief.

Thank You jfrog!As far as the book of Acts goes I'm still studying that book.Your right belief plays into this but I am still studying the part out about how the Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ.

jfrog you know the four gospels shows us a clear picture of God.He must love us more then anything to die for us.
jfrog do you have children?You know I seen a real good picture of God one night back in 2008 I lost my 19 year old son very sudden and unexpectly.This boy was my world and if it were possible,if I could have done this I would have gave my life up without even thinking about if my son could have gotten his life back.That is real love.A love without condition.
Well anyways that is how God loves us.He died so that we could live with him in eternity.So if your not sure who God is I can tell you God is Love and I hope you meet him.

[Isaiah]

To not stray the originality of this post I recived the Holy Spirit when I was 16, I was not seeking it, but I walked up to an altar convicted of my sins and broken before God. As I kneeled down with tears streaming upon my face, their the Lord met me and filled me confirming his presence within me, through tongues. the Spirit speaking through me bringing edification to a broken man. All I have to say who wouldnt want God praying through them to the edification of themselves... "For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). God Bless

[Isaiah]

Thank You jfrog!As far as the book of Acts goes I'm still studying that book.Your right belief plays into this but I am still studying the part out about how the Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ.

jfrog you know the four gospels shows us a clear picture of God.He must love us more then anything to die for us.
jfrog do you have children?You know I seen a real good picture of God one night back in 2008 I lost my 19 year old son very sudden and unexpectly.This boy was my world and if it were possible,if I could have done this I would have gave my life up without even thinking about if my son could have gotten his life back.That is real love.A love without condition.
Well anyways that is how God loves us.He died so that we could live with him in eternity.So if your not sure who God is I can tell you God is Love and I hope you meet him.

Truthfuly incredible sister, the Lord bless abundantly as he already has. Appreciate your strong words.

[mfblume]

Oh, one other thing blume. I'm not sure how biblical it is to seek the Holy Ghost, at least by how seeking is practiced in many Pentecostal services. I know its biblical and even reasonable to ask God for it and even to desire it, however, I'm not sure the bible teaches its something that should be sought after in the manner that Pentecostal churches encourage people to seek. What are your thoughts?

I agree many pentecostal circles are off the wall at times. MANY, not all. I have never stood upon what a church may do as though it was the epitome of example just because they said they were, but always look to the Word to validate everything.

[jfrog]

Thank You jfrog!As far as the book of Acts goes I'm still studying that book.Your right belief plays into this but I am still studying the part out about how the Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ.

jfrog you know the four gospels shows us a clear picture of God.He must love us more then anything to die for us.
jfrog do you have children?You know I seen a real good picture of God one night back in 2008 I lost my 19 year old son very sudden and unexpectly.This boy was my world and if it were possible,if I could have done this I would have gave my life up without even thinking about if my son could have gotten his life back.That is real love.A love without condition.
Well anyways that is how God loves us.He died so that we could live with him in eternity.So if your not sure who God is I can tell you God is Love and I hope you meet him.

I don't have any children. I'm only 23. I'm not sure what to make of the bible or how it portrays God. I do see love in the story of Christ, but I think for different reasons than you. However in the end, I'm not sure if the story of Christ is anything more than a story.

[Isaiah]

I agree many pentecostal circles are off the wall at times. MANY, not all. I have never stood upon what a church may do as though it was the epitome of example just because they said they were, but always look to the Word to validate everything.

Amen we must always look to the Word. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that thye recieved the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Good point

[jfrog]

easter, there are a couple of other puzzle pieces regarding Acts that I would like you to consider.

The third puzzle piece is that signs such as tongues and prophecy sometimes occurred upon receiving an being filled with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2, 10, 19)

The fourth puzzle piece is this:

Acts 2:38-39

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.

Peter promised the Holy Ghost to everyone that has repented and been baptized. It seems to me to be speaking of the Holy Ghost that CAN come post belief (the same Holy Ghost that came post belief in Acts 8).

[mfblume]

I don't have any children. I'm only 23. I'm not sure what to make of the bible or how it portrays God. I do see love in the story of Christ, but I think for different reasons than you. However in the end, I'm not sure if the story of Christ is anything more than a story.

I recommend getting into the TYPOLOGY of the Bible for awesome and solid evidence that all that is of Christ is vitally true.

[Isaiah]

I don't have any children. I'm only 23. I'm not sure what to make of the bible or how it portrays God. I do see love in the story of Christ, but I think for different reasons than you. However in the end, I'm not sure if the story of Christ is anything more than a story.

You could also look up this documentary called, "The Case for Christ," and "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel. very good solid straight evidence. And for the record stay clear form them frogs bro... jk jk jk lol :thumbsup

[SRM]

Luk 11:13 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?

Well, one thing is for sure, Jesus said to ask Him.

I asked many many times, but I was committing sins I would not admit were sins, so I did not get it. When the sins were cleared up, I got it! So, there's more to it than asking Him. Imagine Anton LaVey just asking Jesus for the Holy Ghost. Think he would get it in the state he lived in just because he asked?

Ask Him?..does not say that :)..

how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus is not the Father :)

[jfrog]

easter, with these 4 puzzle pieces in mind we can have some idea of what beliefs about the Holy Ghost are correct.

the 4 puzzle pieces:

1. receiving the Holy Ghost can happen post belief.
2. the Holy Ghost can fill a person multiple times.
3. signs such as tongues can accompany someone being filled/receiving the Holy Ghost
4. this Holy Ghost was promised to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

We can see from point 1. that anyone who speaks of the Holy Ghost as something that can never happen post belief is not speaking of the Holy Ghost that Acts is speaking of.

Some will try to tie the Holy Ghost of Acts into being born of the spirit from (John 3:5). To me this connection makes no sense when it is realized that the Holy Ghost of Acts can fill the same person multiple times as point 2. asserts. Birth is a one time thing. Birth of the Spirit is not something that seems like it ought to ever happen multiple times.

Since some of the believers in the bible received the Holy Ghost with signs such as tongues (from 3.) it seems reasonable to conclude that some of the believers today will receive the Holy Ghost with signs such as tongues.

The Holy Ghost of Acts, the one that can come post belief, post baptism, can be accompanied with signs and can fill a person multiple times was promised to all believers. So if someone mentions the Holy Ghost and leaves no place for it to do any one of these things then I don't think they are speaking of the Holy Ghost from Acts.

*note that there is one argument that would elimanate the signs and wonders accompanying the Holy Ghost for believers today. The argument comes from 1 Corinthians 13:8-10...

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

If that which is perfect has come then all the things mentioned will have been done away with. Personally I don't believe that which is perfect has come. (I always thought this was speaking of Jesus' second coming.) Some people take it to mean the new testament part of the bible. I personally can't see it that way at all because I think we still know in part.

[mizpeh]

Ask Him?..does not say that :)..

how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus is not the Father :)

Who do you think the Holy Spirit is?

[mfblume]

Ask Him?..does not say that :)..

how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus is not the Father :)

I disagree. I thought we were apostolic here. :)

But that aside from the point. Jesus said ASK FOR IT. Period.

[easter]

easter, with these 4 puzzle pieces in mind we can have some idea of what beliefs about the Holy Ghost are correct.

the 4 puzzle pieces:

1. receiving the Holy Ghost can happen post belief.
2. the Holy Ghost can fill a person multiple times.
3. signs such as tongues can accompany someone being filled/receiving the Holy Ghost
4. this Holy Ghost was promised to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

We can see from point 1. that anyone who speaks of the Holy Ghost as something that can never happen post belief is not speaking of the Holy Ghost that Acts is speaking of.

Some will try to tie the Holy Ghost of Acts into being born of the spirit from (John 3:5). To me this connection makes no sense when it is realized that the Holy Ghost of Acts can fill the same person multiple times as point 2. asserts. Birth is a one time thing. Birth of the Spirit is not something that seems like it ought to ever happen multiple times.

Since some of the believers in the bible received the Holy Ghost with signs such as tongues (from 3.) it seems reasonable to conclude that some of the believers today will receive the Holy Ghost with signs such as tongues.

The Holy Ghost of Acts, the one that can come post belief, post baptism, can be accompanied with signs and can fill a person multiple times was promised to all believers. So if someone mentions the Holy Ghost and leaves no place for it to do any one of these things then I don't think they are speaking of the Holy Ghost from Acts.

*note that there is one argument that would elimanate the signs and wonders accompanying the Holy Ghost for believers today. The argument comes from 1 Corinthians 13:8-10...

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

If that which is perfect has come then all the things mentioned will have been done away with. Personally I don't believe that which is perfect has come. (I always thought this was speaking of Jesus' second coming.) Some people take it to mean the new testament part of the bible. I personally can't see it that way at all because I think we still know in part.

jfrog I must warn you that I see receiving the Holy Spirit differently then some here.I'll show you why....

http://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=the+Holy+Spirit&search.x=9&search.y=17

Do a study on pneumatology
http://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=pneumatology&search.x=7&search.y=17

See I don't believe that a man seeks God I believe that God seeks the man.To clarify what I'm saying is this...
Without the Holy Spirit drawing a man to Christ it is impossible for man to understand the things of God unless the Spirit draws him to Christ.
I believe that when man believes in Christ and repents and accepts Christ the Holy Spirit seals that man(Indwells that man).You'll find that in the scriptures.

[easter]

jfrog the links I provided for you don't necessarily agree that the gifts are still ative today.
This is where I differ.The gifts are active and gave to those who love Christ and are still being gave today.

There is a scripture that explains how God is Spirit and why the world can not understand the things of God

1 Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.

Also not everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speak in an unknown tongue right off.I'm still waiting!It's been along time I've been waiting.

You said you didn't know if Christ was just a story.No he existed and you will not find the history of him in Jewish records because they would never acknowledge Jesus but you can find a brief account of him in "The Complete Works Of Josephus" also we know Jesus existed because we know his linage,we know who his mother and Father was.We know where he was born and where he died and even have the name of the Jewish Pharisee who loaned Jesus his tomb.

Also I'm here learning about the Holy Spirit and trying to figure out the difference in how one receives the Holy Spirit.Some receive salvation and the Holy Spirit with tears and Joy and some receive with proof of tongues.

[jfrog]

jfrog I must warn you that I see receiving the Holy Spirit differently then some here.I'll show you why....

http://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=the+Holy+Spirit&search.x=9&search.y=17

Do a study on pneumatology
http://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=pneumatology&search.x=7&search.y=17

See I don't believe that a man seeks God I believe that God seeks the man.To clarify what I'm saying is this...
Without the Holy Spirit drawing a man to Christ it is impossible for man to understand the things of God unless the Spirit draws him to Christ.
I believe that when man believes in Christ and repents and accepts Christ the Holy Spirit seals that man(Indwells that man).You'll find that in the scriptures.

I would agree that the Holy Spirit seals a man when he accepts Christ.

I would also agree that God seeks men and draws them to him. In fact, I would say that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is the single greatest display of God trying to draw men to him. I would also agree that the Holy Spirit is an ongoing force today that draws men to Christ. However, I would like to add that I believe there is another side to the coin. Men seek God also.

[jfrog]

jfrog the links I provided for you don't necessarily agree that the gifts are still ative today.
This is where I differ.The gifts are active and gave to those who love Christ and are still being gave today.

There is a scripture that explains how God is Spirit and why the world can not understand the things of God

1 Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.

Also not everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speak in an unknown tongue right off.I'm still waiting!It's been along time I've been waiting.

You said you didn't know if Christ was just a story.No he existed and you will not find the history of him in Jewish records because they would never acknowledge Jesus but you can find a brief account of him in "The Complete Works Of Josephus" also we know Jesus existed because we know his linage,we know who his mother and Father was.We know where he was born and where he died and even have the name of the Jewish Pharisee who loaned Jesus his tomb.

Also I'm here learning about the Holy Spirit and trying to figure out the difference in how one receives the Holy Spirit.Some receive salvation and the Holy Spirit with tears and Joy and some receive with proof of tongues.

I'm not sure why you cited the scripture about the World not being able to know the things of God?

As far as what I bolded. I believe you have received the Holy Spirit but there seems to be a difference in receiving the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit described in the book of Acts. Just because you have received the Holy Spirit does not mean that you have received the Holy Spirit of Acts. Also, just because you haven't spoken in tongues does not necessarily imply that you haven't received the Holy Spirit described in the book of Acts.

There is something I thought of that I think would be beneficial for you to study. In Acts 2, Peter cited a prophecy from Joel in order to explain them being filled with the Holy Ghost. Try to study about how the filling of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 could fulfill that prophecy.

I believe that Jesus was a real man that lived and died about 2000 years ago. That much is surely real. The story part I was speaking of regarding him is in the details. Details such as God sending him, the virgin birth, the miracles, him being our sacrifice, the resurrection...

[easter]

I'm not sure why you cited the scripture about the World not being able to know the things of God?

As far as what I bolded. I believe you have received the Holy Spirit but there seems to be a difference in receiving the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit described in the book of Acts. Just because you have received the Holy Spirit does not mean that you have received the Holy Spirit of Acts. Also, just because you haven't spoken in tongues does not necessarily imply that you haven't received the Holy Spirit described in the book of Acts.

There is something I thought of that I think would be beneficial for you to study. In Acts 2, Peter cited a prophecy from Joel in order to explain them being filled with the Holy Ghost. Try to study about how the filling of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 could fulfill that prophecy.

I believe that Jesus was a real man that lived and died about 2000 years ago. That much is surely real. The story part I was speaking of regarding him is in the details. Details such as God sending him, the virgin birth, the miracles, him being our sacrifice, the resurrection...

We believe the same way!I too believe the sealing of the Holy Spirit is separate from the baptism of the Holy Spirit.Not sure how it's a separate event but I know the apostles believed on Christ first.Then they were filled by the Holy Spirit spoken of in Acts much later after believing.
I mentioned the scripture about how the world don't understand the things of God because God is Spirit because I believe by this verse we can understand that the Holy Spirit must draw a man to Christ,convicts him of his sin,brings him to repentance or else the man would not come to God.That's why I posted that scripture.
I think the sealing of the Holy Spirit is different then the empowerment from on high and that is why I believe some receive the gifts of the Spirit and some don't understand that there is a difference.This would explain why so many genuine Christians don't believe the gifts are for today.
jfrog it's a shame your not a Christian.You'd make a good one!
I use to struggle with the ideal of "what if Jesus was not really who He was and one night something came to mind,something I had read a hundred times,something I had seen in every passion play.
Remember that Peter walked here on this earth with Jesus and witnessed first hand the miracles of Jesus and even proclaimed to Jesus that Jesus was the Son of God.Yet when the soldiers came and arrested Jesus, Peter's faith failed him and Jesus told him it would.After Peter denied Jesus three times you mind as well say He had no faith in believing that Jesus was the Son of God or else he would not have denied knowing Jesus to man?
What changed that?To the point that Peter preached the gospel and ended up in prison and finally Peter was crucified upside down for the Gospel of Jesus.What changed Peter from the coward he was when he denied Jesus those three times into someone who was willing to die for the gospel of Jesus?It's simple Peter seen Jesus after He rose from the dead.Peter knew the truth and he died spreading that truth to the world.Peter was not a brave man before Jesus's death on the cross yet something changed Peter and that something was the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
After I thought about this awhile I could not believe that I had never seen it this way and I had no logical answer but that what the four gospel teach us is truth because why would anyone die for lie?

[Jeffrey]

I disagree. I thought we were apostolic here. :)

But that aside from the point. Jesus said ASK FOR IT. Period.

Acts 2:38, the monumental verse of many groups, doesn't include asking for it. It's a gift promised, not an opportunity pleaded for.

[mfblume]

Acts 2:38, the monumental verse of many groups, doesn't include asking for it. It's a gift promised, not an opportunity pleaded for.

SO are you saying Peter contradicted Jesus when Jesus said to ask for it? Just because something is a gift does not mean we do not ask for it. We do not work from it since it is a gift, but we ask.

[Timmy]

SO are you saying Peter contradicted Jesus when Jesus said to ask for it? Just because something is a gift does not mean we do not ask for it. We do not work from it since it is a gift, but we ask.

Maybe he was obeying Jesus. Kinda like the way to obey Matthew 28:19 was Acts 2:38. See, Peter knew what Jesus really meant by "asking". He meant, uh, well.... I guess Peter knew that Jesus really meant Acts 2:38!

:D

[Jeffrey]

SO are you saying Peter contradicted Jesus when Jesus said to ask for it? Just because something is a gift does not mean we do not ask for it. We do not work from it since it is a gift, but we ask.

Not saying that at all :)

I just see the Spirit given, similarly to the offer of the Father to the Prodigal: before the Prodigal could even open his mouth with his own schemes of earning a wage under a hired apprentance. He was restored immediately.

I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T ask for the Spirit, but neither am I saying we MUST. It was promised. It's a gift. I don't go around demanding my gifts. I wait until they are offered and I accept them.

[mfblume]

Not saying that at all :)

I just see the Spirit given, similarly to the offer of the Father to the Prodigal: before the Prodigal could even open his mouth with his own schemes of earning a wage under a hired apprentance. He was restored immediately.

I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T ask for the Spirit, but neither am I saying we MUST. It was promised. It's a gift. I don't go around demanding my gifts. I wait until they are offered and I accept them.

Ok. Either way, we can ask and Jesus noted that.

[tv1a]

I've noticed some assume a person has repented if they speak in tongues. No wonder this thread drags on.

[ouden katakrim]

The idea of us asking God for His Spirit without first having repented of everything that is contrary to God is ludicrous.

Its as ludicrous as saying that God is Love therefore He won't judge and condemn anyone to hell because He can't, its against His nature, for God is love.

The idea of someone thinking that God is withholding His Spirit from someone who has repented because they're not speaking in tongues is what is ludicrous. The idea of someone judging someone to be unrepentant JUST because they haven't spoke in tongues is ludicrous, also.

ouden

[Timmy]

I've noticed some assume a person has repented if they speak in tongues. No wonder this thread drags on.

You mean, you can speak in tongues without repenting first?

[KWSS1976]

Yea timmy you did not know that god will fill your dirty body with his clean spirit even before you repent and get washed off in the water....dont make sense to me but I guess he can do it cause I have seen it happen even though the bible tells us the order it will happen in...lol

[tv1a]

Cornelius must not have been save since he spoke in tongues BEFORE he was baptized.

Biblical repentance is nothing like we have been taught in oneness circles. We more concerned about dunking people and getting the chi-chi-chi's rolling off their toungue. We relegated repentance to saying I'm sorry and getting people to conformed to a dress code. Totally unscriptural.

In my vast experience, I've seen more people speak in tongues before baptism occurs. God will give his gift to anyone who asks without preconditions. It happens, if it doesn't happen in your world, you don't get out much.

The only thing which can clean a heart is the Blood of Jesus. There is no scripture which says God will not dwell in an unclean vessel. The scripture which says new wine cannot be put in new wineskins deals with imposing the doctrine of the Pharisees on new converts. (Read Adam Clarke's Commentary)

Although not sequential, Acts 2:38 emphasizes what is the order of importance. Repentance is the most important. Anyone who has a working knowledge of the greek knowledge will tell you repentance is the most important word in that verse.


Yea timmy you did not know that god will fill your dirty body with his clean spirit even before you repent and get washed off in the water....dont make sense to me but I guess he can do it cause I have seen it happen even though the bible tells us the order it will happen in...lol

[tv1a]

The Bible doesn't give any requirements for HG infilling. Repentance is necessary for salvation. HG is needed for salvation. Baptism is needed for salvation. Anyone insisting Acts 2:38 is sequential forgets Cornelius broke the mold.


You mean, you can speak in tongues without repenting first?

[seekerman]

Does anyone really equate tongues with being redeemed? Honestly.

[tv1a]

Many on this forum thinks speaking in tongues is a spiritual *************. Scripture says the angels have a party when one comes to REPENTANCE>

Does anyone really equate tongues with being redeemed? Honestly.

[mizpeh]

Many on this forum thinks speaking in tongues is a spiritual *************. Scripture says the angels have a party when one comes to REPENTANCE>How rude and disgusting!

[mizpeh]

Does anyone really equate tongues with being redeemed? Honestly.Tongues is a sign that a believer has been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

[seekerman]

Tongues is a sign that a believer has been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

But, does anyone really truly equate tongues with redemption?

[KWSS1976]

They worked on one of our church members yesterday morning...Man he had a dozen peps on him..They were over there for 45 min trying to get him to speak in tongues..Finally the preacher must have been getting hungry cause he said that he got a measure of the holyghost...lol..Yall know me... I was over there just shaking my head...Yall correct me if I am wrong besides the one case where Jesus told them to wait in the upperroom and they knew what was coming cause Jesus himself told them to wait..Nobody in the bible had to wait that long for the holyghost to come....I wish people would just realize we do not have the power that the apostles had in the bible to place our hands on someone and they get the holyghost.. Just my gripe for today and how the church has gotten out of hand...

[pelathais]

Does anyone really equate tongues with being redeemed? Honestly.

Not myself, however when I've seen this brought up before, the inevitable cry of "Now you're saying people don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved!!" rings out.

The "Three Step" plan has been so ingrained into the current generation of Oneness Apostolics that "speaking in tongues" is usually equated with salvation itself. That's a primary impetus behind the histrionics in the altar - "New babes are being born into the kingdom!" Maybe.

Taking Parham's "evidence of Spirit baptism" and adding to it G.T. Haywood's "Water & Spirit" doctrine logically leads to equating tongues with salvation.

[mfblume]

Not myself, however when I've seen this brought up before, the inevitable cry of "Now you're saying people don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved!!" rings out.

The "Three Step" plan has been so ingrained into the current generation of Oneness Apostolics that "speaking in tongues" is usually equated with salvation itself. That's a primary impetus behind the histrionics in the altar - "New babes are being born into the kingdom!" Maybe.

Taking Parham's "evidence of Spirit baptism" and adding to it G.T. Haywood's "Water & Spirit" doctrine logically leads to equating tongues with salvation.

I disagree. Let's take the claim you quoted and analyze it. "Now you're saying people don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved!!"

If the Holy Ghost is considered necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost reception, speaking in tongues is still not equated with salvation. It is evidence, albeit initial evidence and not ongoing evidence, that one has what one considers is necessary for salvation. So you could say it is evidence one has salvation only in certain situations. I say certain situations, because water baptism is considered necessary for salvation as well, and people can receive Spirit baptism without having yet been water baptized. But even if one has been water baptized and has been Spirit baptized with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, and those are considered necessary for salvation, that still is not grounds to tongues equates salvation. At best you can say tongues is initial evidence of salvation. No more, though.

Even if people SAY that someone is then saved when they speak in tongues, as they waited to hear the tongues, that still does not mean they equate tongues with salvation. It means tongues is initial evidence of it. There is nothing wrong with this logic. If there is a case of there being initial evidence of something, and that evidence is witnessed, then saying one is saved when seeing such evidence is not saying the evidence IS SALVATION.

Any time there is a claim of evidence involved in any given conclusion, seeing that evidence and claiming the sought for conclusion is present is not saying the evidence is the accomplishment. No one who proposes the so-called three-step doctrine believes tongues equates salvation, unless they say that with the understanding that evidence for a conclusion equates presence of the conclusion. And that is a far cry from flatly equating tongues as salvation.

[mfblume]

I wish people would just realize we do not have the power that the apostles had in the bible to place our hands on someone and they get the holyghost.. Just my gripe for today and how the church has gotten out of hand...

Don't speak for the whole church, bro. There ARE some people who have that gift the apostles had, and I have seen some.

[mfblume]

But, does anyone really truly equate tongues with redemption?

No. :)

[pelathais]

... No one who proposes the so-called three-step doctrine believes tongues equates salvation, unless they say that with the understanding that evidence for a conclusion equates presence of the conclusion. And that is a far cry from flatly equating tongues as salvation.

You're not quibbling with me here, you're taking on the whole UPC culture with that statement. While many might be happy to offer things like, "Even the devil speaks in tongues..." and thus agree with your assertion, the way that the machine actually works is that you are NOT saved in a UPC church until you have "spoken in other tongues."

[Sam]

You're not quibbling with me here, you're taking on the whole UPC culture with that statement. While many might be happy to offer things like, "Even the devil speaks in tongues..." and thus agree with your assertion, the way that the machine actually works is that you are NOT saved in a UPC church until you have "spoken in other tongues."

It is my understanding that speaking with tongues happens AFTER the Holy Ghost Baptism has taken place --maybe not immediately after but some time after. It is also my understanding that a person does not speak with tongues in order to get or obtain the Holy Ghost.

[mfblume]

You're not quibbling with me here, you're taking on the whole UPC culture with that statement. While many might be happy to offer things like, "Even the devil speaks in tongues..." and thus agree with your assertion, the way that the machine actually works is that you are NOT saved in a UPC church until you have "spoken in other tongues."

Right! But that STILL does not mean that referring to such tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism that this "culture" alleges tongues IS salvation. When something is evidence of what is required for salvation, you cannot equate that evidence WITH salvation.

[mfblume]

It is my understanding that speaking with tongues happens AFTER the Holy Ghost Baptism has taken place --maybe not immediately after but some time after. It is also my understanding that a person does not speak with tongues in order to get or obtain the Holy Ghost.

Right. It is only EVIDENCE of Holy Ghost, while Holy Ghost is considered necessary for salvation.

[Timmy]

What if, instead of tongues, the fruit of the Spirit were thought of as the "evidence" of being saved? Would that make it easier or harder to tell who is saved and who isn't saved? :heeheehee

[mfblume]

Palathais, all one can correctly do about the three step teaching is claim it equates repentance, water baptism in Jesus' name and Holy Ghost baptism with salvation. You cannot take what is claimed to be evidence of the third "step" and accuse it as being equal to salvation. People cannot accuse three steppers of equating tongues with salvation.

If tongues are claimed to be the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, and

1) the person has already repented

2) and been baptized in Jesus' name,

3) and simply needs to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost, (and one believes all three "steps" are vital to salvation),

...how else would a "three stepper" describe that person as being saved when we hear that one speak in tongues, having full understanding that tongues are only evidence of the Spirit baptism? Shouting, "they're saved now!" after seeing the person speak in tongues is not equating tongues with salvation. It is believing that tongues is the evidence of salvation, keeping in mind that all three steps are then accomplished and considered to be required for salvation.

[mfblume]

What if, instead of tongues, the fruit of the Spirit were thought of as the "evidence" of being saved? Would that make it easier or harder to tell who is saved and who isn't saved? :heeheehee

It has already been pointed out that TONGUES are not believed by three steppers to be ONGOING evidence, but INITIAL EVIDENCE, in no way affirming one is presently saved. THE FRUIT is ONGOING evidence. If someone spoke in tongues after having repented, and been baptized, and two hours later indulges in atrocious sins, they are not saved because they once spoke in tongues. All we can say is that person ONCE received the Holy Ghost baptism. And no more.

[seekerman]

Present it as one may, but the final result of the three step process for a chance at redemption is that tongues is an integral part of the processI. Tongues cannot be separated from the process of attaining a chance at redemption. Without the 'evidence' of tongues, according to some, there is no redemption.

Who taught such a redemption theology IMMEDIATELY before the oneness Pentecostals came along in 1913 anyway?

[mfblume]

Present it as one may, but the final result of the three step process for a chance at redemption is that tongues is an integral part of the processI. Tongues cannot be separated from the process of attaining a chance at redemption. Without the 'evidence' of tongues, according to some, there is no redemption.

Who taught such a redemption theology IMMEDIATELY before the oneness Pentecostals came along in 1913 anyway?

But that does not equate tongues with salvation. Other than what 3-steppers claim about tongues, how else can they claim tongues is only initial evidence of a part of the process that actually saves, and that tongues do not actually saves in and of itself?? Would you say they should make a disclaimer to indicate tongues do not save, but are evidence of salvation so long as repentance and baptism were already accomplished?

[pelathais]

Palathais,
Call me "pelathais." Say it it with me... well, I don't really know how to say it.

all one can correctly do about the three step teaching is claim it equates repentance, water baptism in Jesus' name and Holy Ghost baptism with salvation. You cannot take what is claimed to be evidence of the third "step" and accuse it as being equal to salvation. People cannot accuse three steppers of equating tongues with salvation.
I can, and I do. I know that you consider yourself to be something of a "Three Stepper" and I know that you don't hold to the "tongues=saved" idea; but it's still a prominent feature of that group-think process.

If tongues are claimed to be the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, and

1) the person has already repented

2) and been baptized in Jesus' name,

3) and simply needs to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost, (and one believes all three "steps" are vital to salvation),

...how else would a "three stepper" describe that person as being saved when we hear that one speak in tongues, having full understanding that tongues are only evidence of the Spirit baptism? Shouting, "they're saved now!" after seeing the person speak in tongues is not equating tongues with salvation. It is believing that tongues is the evidence of salvation, keeping in mind that all three steps are then accomplished and considered to be required for salvation.

Granted. And, the "altar call experience" is what often culminates the whole process; and seeing the convert "speaking in tongues" is what culminates that.

Try this, however: Go to a UPC or other "conservative" OP meeting and say something like, "Speaking in tongues is not necessary for salvation." The responses you'll get will vary, but a prominent component of the accusations that will be made against you will be that you have said, "You don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved...!!!"

I know, you didn't say that - but that's what will be said about you. It is from this experience myself that I say that most of the outspoken rhetoric of the OP salvation experience does involve the idea that "speaking in tongues = salvation."

"No tongues, no salvation."

[Timmy]

It has already been pointed out that TONGUES are not believed by three steppers to be ONGOING evidence, but INITIAL EVIDENCE, in no way affirming one is presently saved. THE FRUIT is ONGOING evidence. If someone spoke in tongues after having repented, and been baptized, and two hours later indulges in atrocious sins, they are not saved because they once spoke in tongues. All we can say is that person ONCE received the Holy Ghost baptism. And no more.

Unless they faked it, of course.

[Sam]

Present it as one may, but the final result of the three step process for a chance at redemption is that tongues is an integral part of the processI. Tongues cannot be separated from the process of attaining a chance at redemption. Without the 'evidence' of tongues, according to some, there is no redemption.

Who taught such a redemption theology IMMEDIATELY before the oneness Pentecostals came along in 1913 anyway?

That WASN'T the teaching of the folks who called themselves Apostolic Faith back in the early 1900's nor was it taught immediately after 1913. That is a later innovation that has taken over a lot of the Oneness Pentecostals but it was not the original Apostolic teaching of the New Testament church in the first century AD, nor was it the teaching of the folks upon whom the Holy Ghost was outpoured in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They were folks who were saved and they knew they were saved. They "discovered" a truth about an empowering experience called "the Holy Ghost Baptism" and they received and preached that experience. A little later they saw the importance of the Name of Jesus and, in addition to praying in that name, healing the sick in that name, evicting demons in that name, and reverencing that name, they began to baptize people in water in that name. The concept of two separate baptisms --one in water and one in Spirit--- being one new birth experience or one salvation experience was not part of their teaching. That has come along later and is a corruption of the New Testament message and has permeated the UPC and other organizations until it is often presented as the norm.

[seekerman]

But that does not equate tongues with salvation. Other than what 3-steppers claim about tongues, how else can they claim tongues is only initial evidence of a part of the process that actually saves, and that tongues do not actually saves in and of itself?? Would you say they should make a disclaimer to indicate tongues do not save, but are evidence of salvation so long as repentance and baptism were already accomplished?

I'm speaking from a 3-stepper perspective as I understand it. There cannot and would never be a disclaimer concerning tongues and salvation with the 3-stepper. For example, if a person repented, was baptized and they said "I'm redeemed for I have been born of the Spirit", the reaction to that by a 3-stepper would include the question of 'evidence' of tongues in some way. If the person indicated they had not spoken in tongues, the 3-stepper would be quick to point out that the person isn't born again....not redeemed. Tongues are an integral indivisible part of the 3-stepper program.

And I ask again, who taught such a doctrine IMMEDIATELY before the 1913 introduction of such theology? Where was the church in the 1800's teaching such things?

[mfblume]

Call me "pelathais." Say it it with me... well, I don't really know how to say it. At least give me credit for the AIS at the end that most miss.

I can, and I do. I know that you consider yourself to be something of a "Three Stepper" and I know that you don't hold to the "tongues=saved" idea; but it's still a prominent feature of that group-think process.

Prominent or not, it cannot be said that tongues equates with salvation.


Granted. And, the "altar call experience" is what often culminates the whole process; and seeing the convert "speaking in tongues" is what culminates that.

Try this, however: Go to a UPC or other "conservative" OP meeting and say something like, "Speaking in tongues is not necessary for salvation."

That would be understood as tongues is not the initial evidence of the Spirit, while the Spirit is considered necessary for salvation. Bro., you are still wrong.

The responses you'll get will vary, but a prominent component of the accusations that will be made against you will be that you have said, "You don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved...!!!"

Right! Because tongues is the INITIAL EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost. Without the initial evidence you do not have the Holy Ghost and Without the Holy Ghost you are not saved. (Now, like I said many times, I believe one is saved if they are sincerely seeking God and all of Acts 2:38, though they have not experienced it yet.) But in all your hypothetical quotes, it is still understood by the hypothetical speakers that tongues do not save, but are evidence of part of what does save. Sorry, you are wrong.

I know, you didn't say that - but that's what will be said about you. It is from this experience myself that I say that most of the outspoken rhetoric of the OP salvation experience does involve the idea that "speaking in tongues = salvation."

"No tongues, no salvation."

But why? It is because tongues are considered initial evidence of part of what does save.

Put it this way. I order a pizza because I want to eat pizza. I smell the pizza and say I HAVE MY PIZZA! I did not buy the smell, but the pizza. The smell is only evidence of the pizza. But it is the pizza I want to eat not the smell. SAME THING WITH TONGUES! :D


:p

[seekerman]

That WASN'T the teaching of the folks who called themselves Apostolic Faith back in the early 1900's nor was it taught immediately after 1913. That is a later innovation that has taken over a lot of the Oneness Pentecostals but it was not the original Apostolic teaching of the New Testament church in the first century AD, nor was it the teaching of the folks upon whom the Holy Ghost was outpoured in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They were folks who were saved and they knew they were saved. They "discovered" a truth about an empowering experience called "the Holy Ghost Baptism" and they received and preached that experience. A little later they saw the importance of the Name of Jesus and, in addition to praying in that name, healing the sick in that name, evicting demons in that name, and reverencing that name, they began to baptize people in water in that name. The concept of two separate baptisms --one in water and one in Spirit--- being one new birth experience or one salvation experience was not part of their teaching. That has come along later and is a corruption of the New Testament message and has permeated the UPC and other organizations until it is often presented as the norm.

As usual, you've put the view into the proper perspective, Sam. Another good post, brother.

Are you now attending a oneness Pentecostal church? Do they KNOW what you believe???? :)

[mfblume]

I'm speaking from a 3-stepper perspective as I understand it. There cannot and would never be a disclaimer concerning tongues and salvation with the 3-stepper. For example, if a person repented, was baptized and they said "I'm redeemed for I have been born of the Spirit", the reaction to that by a 3-stepper would include the question of 'evidence' of tongues in some way. If the person indicated they had not spoken in tongues, the 3-stepper would be quick to point out that the person isn't born again....not redeemed. Tongues are an integral indivisible part of the 3-stepper program.
Right, because there is no other way to look at it when tongues are considered the only initial evidence of Spirit baptism. But that still does not equate tongues with salvation.

And I ask again, who taught such a doctrine IMMEDIATELY before the 1913 introduction of such theology? Where was the church in the 1800's teaching such things?

All I know is that Acts 10 shows it to be the case. Who cares about who or who did not teach it?

[mfblume]

Unless they faked it, of course.

Of course! :thumbsup

[seekerman]

All I know is that Acts 10 shows it to be the case. Who cares about who or who did not teach it?

Well, I think that's kinda important being the only true plan of salvation and all. :)

Doesn't it concern or trouble you that the church of the Living God cannot be found in the 1800's? No problem with it slowly growing after 1913, but nothing in the several centuries immediately prior to 1913?

Something is amiss, bro blume. :)

[Pressing-On]

Right! Because tongues is the INITIAL EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost. Without the initial evidence you do not have the Holy Ghost and Without the Holy Ghost you are not saved. (Now, like I said many times, I believe one is saved if they are sincerely seeking God and all of Acts 2:38, though they have not experienced it yet.) But in all your hypothetical quotes, it is still understood by the hypothetical speakers that tongues do not save, but are evidence of part of what does save. Sorry, you are wrong.


Right, because there is no other way to look at it when tongues are considered the only initial evidence of Spirit baptism. But that still does not equate tongues with salvation.

I am confused at your two comments here? Could you elaborate? I think I know what you are saying, but I'll let you elaborate.

[Sam]

As usual, you've put the view into the proper perspective, Sam. Another good post, brother.

Are you now attending a oneness Pentecostal church? Do they KNOW what you believe???? :)

I am a member of a church called The Hamilton Dream Center.
It would be considered a Charismatic or trinity pentecostal church.
The web site is http://www.hamiltondreamcenter.org/

I have not made my background a secret there. My pastor knows that I am from a Jesus' Name Apostolic background. The folks there know that I accept them as brothers and sisters and as saved as I am. In my opinion, water baptism does not save and the condition of the person's heart being baptized is more important than the amount of water being used or the words being said. I've stated that while teaching midweek Bible Study. In my opinion justification/salvation/regeneration is by faith and is not conditioned on further actions such as water and/or Spirit baptism. I've also made myself clear on that.

I have no problem with the "T" (trinity) word nor with the "P" (persons) word. To me "trinity" just means triunity or triune or three in one and God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To me "person" means mask, role, or office and God performs all three roles, or fulfills all three offices, or wears all three masks in my salvation/redemption experience.

[mfblume]

I am confused at your two comments here? Could you elaborate? I think I know what you are saying, but I'll let you elaborate.

This following statement is only true if one has repented, been baptized and is seeking the Holy Ghost:

Since reception of the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation, if tongues is the EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost, then when one speaks in tongues one is saved, but it is not the tongues that we equate with that salvation. It is the Holy Ghost that is received that is equal to salvation.

Evidence of what saves can never be claimed to be what saves.

[mfblume]

Well, I think that's kinda important being the only true plan of salvation and all. :)

Doesn't it concern or trouble you that the church of the Living God cannot be found in the 1800's? No problem with it slowly growing after 1913, but nothing in the several centuries immediately prior to 1913?

Something is amiss, bro blume. :)

Available records are not an indication of everything that went on through the centuries. If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

[seekerman]

I am a member of a church called The Hamilton Dream Center.
It would be considered a Charismatic or trinity pentecostal church.
The web site is http://www.hamiltondreamcenter.org/

I have not made my background a secret there. My pastor knows that I am from a Jesus' Name Apostolic background. The folks there know that I accept them as brothers and sisters and as saved as I am. In my opinion, water baptism does not save and the condition of the person's heart being baptized is more important than the amount of water being used or the words being said. I've stated that while teaching midweek Bible Study. In my opinion justification/salvation/regeneration is by faith and is not conditioned on further actions such as water and/or Spirit baptism. I've also made myself clear on that.

I have no problem with the "T" (trinity) word nor with the "P" (persons) word. To me "trinity" just means triunity or triune or three in one and God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To me "person" means mask, role, or office and God performs all three roles, or fulfills all three offices, or wears all three masks in my salvation/redemption experience.

Ok, just curious if you were still attending a OP church with your beliefs and how that would work out. :)

[Pressing-On]

This following statement is only true if one has repented, been baptized and is seeking the Holy Ghost:

Since reception of the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation, if tongues is the EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost, then when one speaks in tongues one is saved, but it is not the tongues that we equate with that salvation. It is the Holy Ghost that is received that is equal to salvation.

Evidence of what saves can never be claimed to be what saves.

Thank you. I agree! :thumbsup

Just wanted your explanation to be matter of record on this thread. ;)

[seekerman]

Available records are not an indication of everything that went on through the centuries. If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

But, the visible, viable and powerful church of the Living God cannot be found in the recent history of the 1800's, can it? Why do you think this could be, yet it's easily found in the years after 1913? :)

[Pressing-On]

But, the visible, viable and powerful church of the Living God cannot be found in the recent history of the 1800's, can it? Why do you think this could be, yet it's easily found in the years after 1913? :)
It's pretty much laid out in the Bible. Why are we looking for history here?

[pelathais]

Available records are not an indication of everything that went on through the centuries. If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

And yet... (here we go again)...

The startling absence of any one - not one - not one single person - not one single reference - not a hint - nothing! - nobody - teaching the "full package Acts 2:38," message at any point from about the year 200 AD until 1913 gives us a pretty good idea that there is a huge gap along the way.

Simply put - nobody taught this message during that time frame. Nobody.

[simplyme]

I never asked, HE just kept to HIS WORD after I was baptized in HIS name..and infilled me with it as I slept during an especially critical crisis point in my life., when I needed it most.
:bliss

[pelathais]

It's pretty much laid out in the Bible. Why are we looking for history here?

Because the assertion is frequently made that this was always taught all throughout the church age. It clearly was not.

From there we go to our challenge: Did the "church" die out for all those years, or are those who insist that the "full package Acts 2:38," message is the only means to salvation mistaken?

I believe that the church and her Savior have been triumphant.

[mfblume]

And yet... (here we go again)...

The startling absence of any one - not one - not one single person - not one single reference - not a hint - nothing! - nobody - teaching the "full package Acts 2:38," message at any point from about the year 200 AD until 1913 gives us a pretty good idea that there is a huge gap along the way.

Simply put - nobody taught this message during that time frame. Nobody.

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

[Pressing-On]

Because the assertion is frequently made that this was always taught all throughout the church age. It clearly was not.

From there we go to our challenge: Did the "church" die out for all those years, or are those who insist that the "full package Acts 2:38," message is the only means to salvation mistaken?

I believe that the church and her Savior have been triumphant.
It was in the Bible, Pel. Goodness, who cares if anyone recorded anything about it in the annals of history? I don't. His Word is forever settled in heaven. He didn't include Josephus, et al, in that. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

Touche' - good post! :thumbsup

[seekerman]

It's pretty much laid out in the Bible. Why are we looking for history here?

Well, one would think that the powerful, viable and victorious church of the Living God would be just as visible as all those false churches in the 1800's, yet it's not. It's nowhere to be found. Until after 1913. :)

Where was the visible, viable and powerful church in the 1800's?

[Pressing-On]

Well, one would think that the powerful, viable and victorious church of the Living God would be just as visible as all those false churches in the 1800's, yet it's not. It's nowhere to be found. Until after 1913. :)

Where was the visible, viable and powerful church in the 1800's?
But it's in His Word. Will we be derailed by the writings of men?

[seekerman]

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

It's really not about incomplete history, it's about a total lack of a visible, viable and powerful church of the Living God for several centuries....until after 1913 at which time we suddenly begin having some sort of record of the church.

Why would there be a total absence of the church until 1913 do you think? Did the gates of hell prevail against the church in the 1800's? :)

[pelathais]

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

Your assertion of the Bible being "complete" is a bit lacking, IMHO. There is scant mention of which of Noah's sons were the ancestors of the Polynesians. It's like the ancient Hebrews were completely unaware of the existence of Polynesians. The enormously populous races of the Chinese and the inhabitants of the Subcontinent of India are MIA as well.

And "infallible" depends upon one's interpretation. The "plenary verbal inspiration" of the fundamentalists fails the infallibility test when considering verses like 1 Kings 7:23 and a host of others.

Given all of that uncertainty, I find that when I am in dialog with someone about the Bible's claims and my own claim that salvation is real, I need to be as accurate as possible to maintain any credibility whatsoever. Thus, I have to admit that my own views on the New Birth and such are an historical novelty, birthed from the fertile fields of 19th Century Dispensationalism and Fundamentalism and that they do not represent the historic teachings of the Christian community.

[pelathais]

It was in the Bible, Pel. Goodness, who cares if anyone recorded anything about it in the annals of history? I don't. His Word is forever settled in heaven. He didn't include Josephus, et al, in that. LOL!

How dare you "LOL" at Flavius Josephus! :grampa

If it's so clear in the Bible, why did this escape the attention of everyone for 1700 years of the church's 2000 year existence?


But it's in His Word. Will we be derailed by the writings of men?

It's your assertion that it's "His Word." So now we must evaluate your writings. :thumbsup

[seekerman]

Your assertion of the Bible being "complete" is a bit lacking, IMHO. There is scant mention of which of Noah's sons were the ancestors of the Polynesians. It's like the ancient Hebrews were completely unaware of the existence of Polynesians. The enormously populous races of the Chinese and the inhabitants of the Subcontinent of India are MIA as well.



Woah! What chu tawkin about?

[pelathais]

Woah! What chu tawkin about?

I'm sorry, but the font encoding for my browser doesn't render that clearly. What are you speaking of?

[Pressing-On]

How dare you "LOL" at Flavius Josephus! :grampa
You know he has a reputation of exaggerating in his accounts even though he does have accuracy as well.

If it's so clear in the Bible, why did this escape the attention of everyone for 1700 years of the church's 2000 year existence?
I don't know. I just read it in Acts, supported in the Epistles and I believed it. Silly me! :gaga

It's your assertion that it's "His Word." So now we must evaluate your writings. :thumbsup

Go for it, :friend. If you come after me, I'll pounce on you too! :bliss All's fair in love and war - right? :toofunny

[seekerman]

I'm sorry, but the font encoding for my browser doesn't render that clearly. What are you speaking of?

Sorry, I reverted to redneck.

You made this statement a couple of posts ago....

"Your assertion of the Bible being "complete" is a bit lacking, IMHO. There is scant mention of which of Noah's sons were the ancestors of the Polynesians. It's like the ancient Hebrews were completely unaware of the existence of Polynesians. The enormously populous races of the Chinese and the inhabitants of the Subcontinent of India are MIA as well. "

What are you talking about? :)

[pelathais]

You know he has a reputation of exaggerating in his accounts even though he does have accuracy as well.


I don't know. I just read it in Acts, supported in the Epistles and I believed it. Silly me! :gaga



Go for it, :friend. If you come after me, I'll pounce on you too! :bliss All's fair in love and war - right? :toofunny

And you are not trouble one bit by the fact that no one held to this view throughout most of the church age?

[simplyme]

Zero times., I didn't have to ask, HE merely kept HIS word, and infilled me with it as I slept..during an especially critical time, when I needed it most., HE is AWESOMEly FAITHFUL!
:bliss

[Pressing-On]

And you are not trouble one bit by the fact that no one held to this view throughout most of the church age?
Well, Pel - no. It's because He uses me and I am sensitive to His spirit, so I don't have a problem with it. It's because what He does in my life now, He did in the NT. So, I know there is no chain broken.

One time I made a huge mistake that could have destroyed my life and every day, He came to me and loved me out of it. Every day, He would not let me go. I didn't know that He loved me that much. I mean, I repented, was baptized, filled with His Spirit and lived a Christian life for years. And then one day, everything around me started tanking and I was tired. I was so tired of everything, I made a mistake because I didn't have the strength to keep walking, but He rescued me. I owe Him my very life. Aside from being filled with His Spirit and talking to Him through the years, He was more real to me during that time than ever. I didn't know Him on that level. I could still cry about it!

Anyway, gotta run. Enjoyed it you ol' cuss! :toofunny

[mfblume]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.

[mizpeh]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.:highfive

[seekerman]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.

This isn't about a deserted island and this isn't about requiring history to be saved, this is about the fact that the oneness Pentecostals cannot find the church of the Living God during the 1800's, a relatively recent century.

Why can't the church of the Living God be found in the 1800's? Why can it suddenly be found, slowly, after 1913? :)

[BeenThinkin]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.


According to the doctrine of some on AFF, if one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved, ....... then they couldn't get saved because there was no one there to do the second step of the three step plan!

Just saying.....

BT

[seekerman]

According to the doctrine of some on AFF, if one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved, ....... then they couldn't get saved because there was no one there to do the second step of the three step plan!

Just saying.....

BT

:highfive

[mizpeh]

According to the doctrine of some on AFF, if one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved, ....... then they couldn't get saved because there was no one there to do the second step of the three step plan!

Just saying.....

BTGod would send someone to that island in the same fashion that he took Philip away from the Ethiopian Enuch. ;)


Acts 8: 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing

[BeenThinkin]

God would send someone to that island in the same fashion that he took Philip away from the Ethiopian Enuch. ;)


Acts 8: 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing


Yea, but what if He didn't?

BT

[mizpeh]

Yea, but what if He didn't?

BTThen He would send a ship to rescue the man. And there would be a believer on board who would baptize him. :bliss

[seekerman]

Then He would send a ship to rescue the man. And there would be a believer on board who would baptize him. :bliss

Let's hope it was after 1913! :)

[mizpeh]

Let's hope it was after 1913! :)There's always been "heretics" to persecute!

[SteppingStone]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.


http://hellosundaymorning.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/wilson1.jpg

They would probably spend a lot of their time preaching to Wilson...:p

[Pressing-On]

http://hellosundaymorning.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/wilson1.jpg

They would probably spend a lot of their time preaching to Wilson...:p

Too good!!! :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

[mizpeh]

" Luke puts representative or programmatic material early in his narrative that are then treated more briefly in other occurrences. Thus, Acts 2:14-16 is a representative statement of preaching to Jews, and 2:42-47 a summary description of the life of the early community. Therefore, Acts 2:37-41 should be considered Luke's understanding of the normal pattern of response to Christian preaching. Luke has placed here his understanding of an exemplary account of what was involved in becoming a Christian. Those who receive the apostolic message (2:41), recognize Jesus as Lord and Messiah, (2:36), repent, and are baptized in his name (2:38) receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and salvation (2:38-39,46), and then participate in the life of the community (2:41-47). Variations from this pattern would be noted for their special significance."

Baptism in the Early Church, by Everett Ferguson, page 170.

[seekerman]

http://hellosundaymorning.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/wilson1.jpg

They would probably spend a lot of their time preaching to Wilson...:p

Two things....

1) It's hair looks a little long to me.
2) The guy has a beard!

What bible is he reading anyway?????

[mfblume]

http://hellosundaymorning.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/wilson1.jpg

They would probably spend a lot of their time preaching to Wilson...:p

lolololol

[mfblume]

This isn't about a deserted island and this isn't about requiring history to be saved, this is about the fact that the oneness Pentecostals cannot find the church of the Living God during the 1800's, a relatively recent century.

Why can't the church of the Living God be found in the 1800's? Why can it suddenly be found, slowly, after 1913? :)

Poor guy on the island could not get saved, huh? Hopefully a full set of the history of the world would float by that was fallen off from some shipwreck, and then MAYBE... just maybe.

[seekerman]

Poor guy on the island could not get saved, huh? Hopefully a full set of the history of the world would float by that was fallen off from some shipwreck, and then MAYBE... just maybe.

I'm sure he would have found the same salvation doctrine that the civilized world found...after 1913. :)

But, imagine the confusion in his mind if he had been rescued in 1910 and upon return to civilization couldn't find a oneness Pentecostal church preaching the true salvation gospel of the living God. Stranger yet, he would not be able to find the church of the living God in the 1800s either. Or the 1700s.

Would he then have to assume that the gates of hell DID prevail against the church for several hundred years and it was his mission to reintroduce the true salvation message to the world? Could it be that this castaway's name was R.E. McAlister and he later would preach this new salvation message he found while stranded on the island? :)

[pelathais]

If one was on a deserted island, with nothing but the bible, and never knew anything else about God, and they learned from the bible how to be saved... then what? Could they do it? Would they require history to be saved? Go figure.

I have actually met people from foreign lands who were in a similar situation. I have never met anyone who ended up with the "full package Acts 2:38" method of salvation, though. Nobody gets that without first coming through us. We guard it jealously.

I know a family of Ukranians who we transported to the Caucasus region in Soviet days. They knew only some scanty elements of the Orthodox faith but had never been believers and grew up under Communism. They started off with just a Bible and developed the idea that "church institutions" were wrong. They baptized each other and their converts according to Matthew 28:19 - since "that's what Jesus said."

They only learned about the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with tongues from watching a tape of a TBN broadcast in the 1980s. When they finally got to America the first person they wanted to meet was Benny Hinn.

These were some of the most sincere Christians I have ever met. Sincere, and desperately naive - IMHO.

Oneness and Jesus name baptism escaped their attention entirely. They took the Bible very literally and and very seriously. When "Jesus prayed to the Father" they saw two Persons communicating with one another. I find this to be a common conclusion among most Bible readers.

Your presumption that our "message" is so easily found in the Bible seems to ignore the fact that no one ever "found" this message in the Bible for 1700 years. That is the crushing argument history brings against our insistence that "this is the only way to be save." (And I know Mike, you don't take that extreme of a position - BUT you keep arguing in favor of it).

[notofworks]

I have actually met people from foreign lands who were in a similar situation. I have never met anyone who ended up with the "full package Acts 2:38" method of salvation, though. Nobody gets that without first coming through us. We guard it jealously.

I know a family of Ukranians who we transported to the Caucasus region in Soviet days. They knew only some scanty elements of the Orthodox faith but had never been believers and grew up under Communism. They started off with just a Bible and developed the idea that "church institutions" were wrong. They baptized each other and their converts according to Matthew 28:19 - since "that's what Jesus said."

They only learned about the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with tongues from watching a tape of a TBN broadcast in the 1980s. When they finally got to America the first person they wanted to meet was Benny Hinn.

These were some of the most sincere Christians I have ever met. Sincere, and desperately naive - IMHO.

Oneness and Jesus name baptism escaped their attention entirely. They took the Bible very literally and and very seriously. When "Jesus prayed to the Father" they saw two Persons communicating with one another. I find this to be a common conclusion among most Bible readers.

Your presumption that our "message" is so easily found in the Bible seems to ignore the fact that no one ever "found" this message in the Bible for 1700 years. That is the crushing argument history brings against our insistence that "this is the only way to be save." (And I know Mike, you don't take that extreme of a position - BUT you keep arguing in favor of it).




The thing about this whole discussion that amazes me is that people like Blume and the 3-steppers have taken a position that seems to propagate that a special few on this planet's history have discovered the secret decoder ring to the bible and have become a special chosen one for salvation. The rest of us through history? Too bad, so sad.

If you look through this country, heck, this continent or this world, you're going to see thousands of churches. The 3-step view of them? "Poor saps". I guess it's too bad for them on "election day", huh?

It feels like a very privileged, arrogant position.

[mfblume]

I have actually met people from foreign lands who were in a similar situation. I have never met anyone who ended up with the "full package Acts 2:38" method of salvation, though. Nobody gets that without first coming through us. We guard it jealously.

You never answered my question.

Could they be saved, though? Do not miss my question. You know my thoughts on the whole package deal thing. But they have no history and no verification of who preached what for how many centuries. Could they be saved? Is the bible complete enough, whether or not you agree with my viewpoint?

When "Jesus prayed to the Father" they saw two Persons communicating with one another. I find this to be a common conclusion among most Bible readers.

Do you feel they are correct in saying there are two persons? Aside the point, but just wondering.

Your presumption that our "message" is so easily found in the Bible seems to ignore the fact that no one ever "found" this message in the Bible for 1700 years.

You are avoiding my question. Could such a person be saved on that desert island? Yes or no? Or do they need an ecclesiastical history book with the bible?

[mfblume]

I'm sure he would have found the same salvation doctrine that the civilized world found...after 1913. :)

But, imagine the confusion in his mind if he had been rescued in 1910 and upon return to civilization couldn't find a oneness Pentecostal church preaching the true salvation gospel of the living God. Stranger yet, he would not be able to find the church of the living God in the 1800s either. Or the 1700s.

Would he then have to assume that the gates of hell DID prevail against the church for several hundred years and it was his mission to reintroduce the true salvation message to the world? Could it be that this castaway's name was R.E. McAlister and he later would preach this new salvation message he found while stranded on the island? :)

You never answered my question either. What is it with that?

[Timmy]

You never answered my question either. What is it with that?

Maybe you ask offkey questions. :heeheehee

[pelathais]

You never answered my question.

Could they be saved, though? Do not miss my question. You know my thoughts on the whole package deal thing. But they have no history and no verification of who preached what for how many centuries. Could they be saved? Is the bible complete enough, whether or not you agree with my viewpoint?
That is such a fundamental and emphatic "YES!" that I thought my answer was already known and your question was rhetorical.

Jesus saves. He can and He always has.


Do you feel they are correct in saying there are two persons? Aside the point, but just wondering.

I hold to what I have come to understand Tertullian's original point to have been. A "Person" wasn't intended the way we use "person" today.

"Two (or Three) Persons, analogously" in modern terms. In the case of Christ's prayer to the Father, I see a complete human being with all of the faculties that you and I possess crying out to the Great Divine. He wasn't just a "Deus ex machina." The "machima" was a complete human being.

You are avoiding my question. Could such a person be saved on that desert island? Yes or no? Or do they need an ecclesiastical history book with the bible?
I wasn't "avoiding," I was jumping ahead in the dialog. Yes, they could be "saved" - and really saved at that. And they could possess this salvation without a single inclination toward our "Apostolic Distinctives."

[seekerman]

You never answered my question either. What is it with that?

Of course he could be saved without history books. He wouldn't be able to find the church of the Living God in the history books before 1913 though, wouldn't matter if a container ship with thousands of volumes of history books ran aground on his island. That should cause him not a small amount of concern.

Why do you think 1913 is a magic year for the guy on the island? :)

[pelathais]

...

Why do you think 1913 is a magic year for the guy on the island? :)

Everybody was on a "deserted island" until the year 1913, when Brother Scheppe roused us all from our tropically induced daze by shouting about his Eureka! moment of revelation.

Ever since that time the preacher had to say your baptism right or you went to hell. That's just the way it is.

[seekerman]

Everybody was on a "deserted island" until the year 1913, when Brother Scheppe roused us all from our tropically induced daze by shouting about his Eureka! moment of revelation.

Ever since that time the preacher had to say your baptism right or you went to hell. That's just the way it is.

As someone pointed out, the poor guy on the desert island didn't have anyone to baptize him. He was just a tongue talking, Holy Ghost filled......child of satan?

:paranoid

[Standards]

As someone pointed out, the poor guy on the desert island didn't have anyone to baptize him. He was just a tongue talking, Holy Ghost filled......child of satan?

:paranoid

It's Holy Ghost, Baptism in Jesus name, and holiness or hell. It's that simple.

[KWSS1976]

thats not the order it was stated in the bible Standards..Its Repent,be baptised and you shall recieve the gift of the holyghost..got to get the order right to be biblical correct...lol

[pelathais]

thats not the order it was stated in the bible Standards..Its Repent,be baptised and you shall recieve the gift of the holyghost..got to get the order right to be biblical correct...lol

Don't trouble Stan with your Bible and such. He's on a mission to prove just how ridiculous the "Three Step" dance can become.

Go Stan! Go!

[Standards]

Don't trouble Stan with your Bible and such. He's on a mission to prove just how ridiculous the "Three Step" dance can become.

Go Stan! Go!

Hell will be hot for compromisers

[KWSS1976]

Hell will be a hot place for all the lalalalalalalala tongue talkers that think God gave them something he did not really give them....

[Standards]

Hell will be a hot place for all the lalalalalalalala tongue talkers that think God gave them something he did not really give them....

Somebody needs to put you in line boy. Your attitude stinks.

[Timmy]

Hell will be a hot place for loud cell phone talkers.

[pelathais]

Somebody needs to put you in line boy. Your attitude stinks.

Wow. Thanks Stan. I was wondering who could possibly top KWSS in the "attitude that stank" contest.

[KWSS1976]

_______________________ this type of line or

--------------------------- this type of line...

[Standards]

_______________________ this type of line or

--------------------------- this type of line...

A red mark across your backside. That's the kind of line you need

[allstate1]

WAIT! I want one!

[pelathais]

A red mark across your backside. That's the kind of line you need

I've often noticed how sadism and "tough on standards" go hand in hand in shaping a personality. Were you troubled as a child as well, Stan? Did your toilet training involve a lot of coercion and beatings?

[KWSS1976]

O had plenty of those when I was smaller they do hurt but apparently did not work...

[KWSS1976]

Pel they get like that when you don't play by there 3 step rules that don't even line up with the bible....lol

[pelathais]

WAIT! I want one!

Dude, you really need to quote the post you're responding to. Did you intend this one?

A red mark across your backside. That's the kind of line you need

[Standards]

O had plenty of those when I was smaller they do hurt but apparently did not work...

If you were my son...

[allstate1]

Dude, you really need to quote the post you're responding to. Did you intend this one?

YES!!! OOOO Wait this is not the S&M chat!!!

[Standards]

Pel they get like that when you don't play by there 3 step rules that don't even line up with the bible....lol

It lines up with my Bible. What Bible are you reading from? Probably the rainbow edition. You liberals love rainbows...

[KWSS1976]

What would you do if I was your son? I am just interested in knowing that info

[pelathais]

It lines up with my Bible. What Bible are you reading from? Probably the rainbow edition. You liberals love rainbows...

Noah loved the rainbow. But that was before you guys came along and sullied up its meaning with your kinky and abusive manners.

[KWSS1976]

How does it line up explain it to me please

[Standards]

How does it line up explain it to me please

Don't have to. It's right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.

2 Thessalonians 2 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[Jeffrey]

Don't have to. It's right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.

2 Thessalonians 2 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Maybe you aren't having a love for the truth, instead conforming to ignorant militancy, and you are believing a strong delusion. See, that cop out to escape discussion can go both ways.

[Standards]

Maybe you aren't having a love for the truth, instead conforming to ignorant militancy, and you are believing a strong delusion. See, that cop out to escape discussion can go both ways.

1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

[Jeffrey]

1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Want to discuss what this part of the letter to Timothy was referring to? What it meant to the original hearers? What the audience intended?

I don't call open discussions concerning the Teachings of Jesus, coincidentally, teachings that have such grave implications as to send one to hell or promote one to heaven, to be "endless genealogies." Nice try.

[KWSS1976]

yea this is a good protion of scripture it descibes the LALALALALALALA tongues I hear in church to a tee (deceivableness)

[Jeffrey]

yea this is a good protion of scripture it descibes the LALALALALALALA tongues I hear in church to a tee (deceivableness)

Your attitude towards tongues in general is interesting.

You seem to doubt glossalalia as a possibility and that most who claim to be speaking in tongues, are really just emotionally babbling? Is this what you claim?

I'm careful to go so far myself. I would hate to call what is holy evil, while also extending caution and space to question ourselves.

[KWSS1976]

yup just as the holyghost tee web site states.....and look at the holyghost 101 thread borat faked it and no one ever knew the diffrence......

[Standards]

Want to discuss what this part of the letter to Timothy was referring to? What it meant to the original hearers? What the audience intended?

I don't call open discussions concerning the Teachings of Jesus, coincidentally, teachings that have such grave implications as to send one to hell or promote one to heaven, to be "endless genealogies." Nice try.

The first law of Hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is to take a scripture or text at face value. If you don't understand the verse or verses, then you delve into the Greek or history or whatever. Paul's statement here is very plain. The Jews wanted to argue about pointless matters. You would do well to understand this

[Standards]

yup just as the holyghost tee web site states.....and look at the holyghost 101 thread borat faked it and no one ever knew the diffrence......

That wouldn't have happened in my church.

[KWSS1976]

If it was real it would happen just as it did it the bible and it would not take half the church standing around someone shouting at them thats it,thats it,,,,almost got it,almost... for 45 mins and the person still does not speak in tongues....

[Jeffrey]

The first law of Hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is to take a scripture at face value. If you don't understand the verse or verses, then you delve into the Greek or history or whatever. Paul's statement here is very plain. The Jews wanted to argue about pointless matters. You would do well to understand this

What does "face value" mean to you? How you see it? So if Paul wrote the words "I die daily" should we take that to mean Paul had a supernatural gift of dying and coming back to life? Or should we consider language? Should we ask more of the cultural time, searching Jewish stories for word pictures like "dying?"

First, there's no such law as "face value," since you made that up just now. Nice try though.

Second, the words written had an original meaning, and we would do our best to discover what that meaning is, rather than reading our own into it. I would hope you'd agree with that.

Pointless matters? Tongues and Spirit infilling is pointless to you? :)

[Jeffrey]

That wouldn't have happened in my church.

What wouldn't have happened? A faker?

[NotforSale]

The first law of Hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is to take a scripture at face value. If you don't understand the verse or verses, then you delve into the Greek or history or whatever. Paul's statement here is very plain. The Jews wanted to argue about pointless matters. You would do well to understand this

Ok, face value.

Why are there approximately 38,000 Denominations that take Scripture for "Face Value"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Your hard line approach is why people avoid Christianity.

[allstate1]

JUST a reminder!! Standards is a fake!!!!

[NotforSale]

JUST a reminder!! Standards is a fake!!!!

That doesn't surprise me. Can we torpedo his boat?

:pirates

[Jeffrey]

Ok, face value.

Why are there approximately 38,000 Denominations that take Scripture for "Face Value"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Your hard line approach is why people avoid Christianity.

Anyone that picks up literature written in Koine Greek, copied in Latin, Middle English and in various forms today, text that relates back 2,000 years, some going back much further than that (Apocryphal and OT canon), different language, culture, time, thought, ideas, entire civilization using different ways of expression, to come back and say "plain and simple" is quite laughable.

What is plain and simple is the story form of Scripture. What is not so plain and simple are many of the details.

I guess men that spend 50-60 years with these Texts are quite "plain and simple" men too.

[Jeffrey]

JUST a reminder!! Standards is a fake!!!!

Okay, that makes sense.

NOW, is that you? lol

[KWSS1976]

Dang these fakes have got to stop...they get my blood pressure up....

[NotforSale]

Anyone that picks up literature written in Koine Greek, copied in Latin, Middle English and in various forms today, text that relates back 2,000 years, some going back much further than that (Apocryphal and OT canon), different language, culture, time, thought, ideas, entire civilization using different ways of expression, to come back and say "plain and simple" is quite laughable.

What is plain and simple is the story form of Scripture. What is not so plain and simple are many of the details.

I guess men that spend 50-60 years with these Texts are quite "plain and simple" men too.

Is it just me, or do others find solitude and rest while surrounded by Creation? I experience great simplicity there, and pondering God in places where I can't see man's hand brings me great relief.

Reaching for God without the talons of Religion wrapped around my neck is beyond words. A roaring waterfall and the crack of thunder leave me in awe! I’ve sat on weathered and fallen trees, watching life turn these old relics into a home. When the sun cradles beneath the evening sky and a fish pierces the water for one last insect, stress, anger, and much of life’s woes are forgotten.

The older men have one thing that seems to bring them into greater dimensions of simplicity; experience.

[pelathais]

Dang these fakes have got to stop...they get my blood pressure up....

That's Stan's mission in life.

[BeenThinkin]

Is it just me, or do others find solitude and rest while surrounded by Creation? I experience great simplicity there, and pondering God in places where I can't see man's hand brings me great relief.

Reaching for God without the talons of Religion wrapped around my neck is beyond words. A roaring waterfall and the crack of thunder leave me in awe! I’ve sat on weathered and fallen trees, watching life turn these old relics into a home. When the sun cradles beneath the evening sky and a fish pierces the water for one last insect, stress, anger, and much of life’s woes are forgotten.

The older men have one thing that seems to bring them into greater dimensions of simplicity; experience.


NotForSale........Awe...... the awesomeness of experience. It's "a friend that sticketh closer than a brother!" Oh, now don't crucify me for taking that out of context! But, experience speaks to us in such away that nothing else can. You can tell me what I should do and should not do, what I should believe and should not believe, but you CANNOT tell me what I have experienced! Yet, I must be honest with my experiences.

By the way, my experience is NOTFORSALE! NFS....just a play on words.

Been Thinkin

[easter]

The thing is... There is scripture stating that there is a distinct difference between being Born of the Holy Spirit and being Baptised in the Holy Spirit

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Now according to this Ephesians 1:13 All who have repented and accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior are sealed by the Holy Spirit.


Acts 19:1-6 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues


Acts 19:1-6 (Hebrews 5:12-14 NIV) In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil

Now this is why some receive one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit(Tongues) and some don't,this is why some believe and some don't.
However I do believe in the gift of tongues but I do not agree that it is a sign of having salvation.Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and what he done on the cross.
Jesus is the only way to receive salvation and the Holy Spirit is a gift to the believer and all who are saved receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and not just an elite few.

[Jeffrey]

The thing is... There is scripture stating that there is a distinct difference between being Born of the Holy Spirit and being Baptised in the Holy Spirit

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Now according to this Ephesians 1:13 All who have repented and accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior are sealed by the Holy Spirit.


Acts 19:1-6 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues


Acts 19:1-6 (Hebrews 5:12-14 NIV) In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil

Now this is why some receive one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit(Tongues) and some don't,this is why some believe and some don't.
However I do believe in the gift of tongues but I do not agree that it is a sign of having salvation.Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and what he done on the cross.
Jesus is the only way to receive salvation and the Holy Spirit is a gift to the believer and all who are saved receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and not just an elite few.

:thumbsup

[tv1a]

Huh? **************
Many on this forum thinks speaking in tongues is a spiritual *************. Scripture says the angels have a party when one comes to REPENTANCE>

[Jeffrey]

Huh? **************

It means admin thought the word was too crass, so they censored it with "******"

[luzsilver]

Narrow? Privileged few? Those that know how to repeat what they've heard? Those that say, "Hallelujah" so quickly that everyone starts yelling and says it's the Holy Ghost?

This whole subject lights my fire. It's an insult the the Holy Spirit that indwells EVERY believer, not just the special few that manage to regurgitate unintelligible "words" that no one understands.

you need it you need it , uninteligible words? God understands them . are you saying Gods spirit is regurgitating silly you . like i said you need it you need it .
c:ursofunny:ursofunny:grampa

[luzsilver]

:girlytantrumA decoder ring, maybe?

way too much tv :pullhair

[luzsilver]

:blah:blah:blah:blah:blahOf course I agree with him! He said 2011 is the end of the world. Period. And the rapture is on May 21, 2011. He believes one has no choice in repentance, too. Salvation is unmerited, cannot be achieved by good works or prayer, and is a pure act of God's grace. Go, Harold!

not man not the angels NOT EVEN TOM DICK OR (HAROLD } ONLY GOD :blah:blah

[KWSS1976]

luzsilver how do you know god understands them.....? What scripture tells you god understands tongues...

[mizpeh]

luzsilver how do you know god understands them.....? What scripture tells you god understands tongues...

God gives the utterance. The words don't come from our understanding.

[BeenThinkin]

Someone please tell me why so many say the same things over and over.... same short utterances, over & over & over? Is God so limited in His language that that is all He can say? Please I'm not interested in arguing, but would just like someone to explain the whys.......

Don't jump to another subject...just answer why the limited utterances! Please!

Been Thinkin

[notofworks]

Okay, that makes sense.

NOW, is that you? lol

Nope. When I've done a fake before, I argued with myself. When I couldn't get anyone to fight, I just created a fight! :lol

That's my problem here....most of these guys won't fight with me anymore because they can't come up with answers to my questions, so I have to create my own fight! Like Blume....he won't answer my simple request for one verse in the bible where anyone "tried to get the Holy Ghost" and didn't get it.

So maybe I'll just create another character!:D

[Timmy]

Someone please tell me why so many say the same things over and over.... same short utterances, over & over & over? Is God so limited in His language that that is all He can say? Please I'm not interested in arguing, but would just like someone to explain the whys.......

Don't jump to another subject...just answer why the limited utterances! Please!

Been Thinkin

Heavenly is a language, after all. Some people just like to repeat things a lot. E.g., "You go girl! You go girl! You go girl!" (in Heavenly, of course).

[pelathais]

Someone please tell me why so many say the same things over and over.... same short utterances, over & over & over? Is God so limited in His language that that is all He can say? Please I'm not interested in arguing, but would just like someone to explain the whys.......

Don't jump to another subject...just answer why the limited utterances! Please!

Been Thinkin
I believe that you may be describing "ecstatic utterances." This is a phenomena that has been observed going back millennia and is contrasted with the events described in Acts 2. However, it is likely the same phenomena Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians.

Due to our common inability to even identify this phenomena clearly as a "language" it is often called "tongues of angels" as per 1 Corinthians 13; though we have no way of knowing if it is the same thing as what Paul had in mind there.

[BeenThinkin]

I believe that you may be describing "ecstatic utterances." This is a phenomena that has been observed going back millennia and is contrasted with the events described in Acts 2. However, it is likely the same phenomena Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians.

Due to our common inability to even identify this phenomena clearly as a "language" it is often called "tongues of angels" as per 1 Corinthians 13; though we have no way of knowing if it is the same thing as what Paul had in mind there.


So, you do not believe that any of this is "learned utterances?"

BT

[Cindy]

Some languages, or dialects repeat phrases, or words.

[Jeffrey]

Some languages, or dialects repeat phrases, or words.

Yeah, like the Indians in Peter Pan! :ursofunny

[pelathais]

So, you do not believe that any of this is "learned utterances?"

BT

No, that's bouncing back to the other extreme. "Any of this...?" That encompasses a great deal things for our consideration.

From my own experience, I have heard people who were either subconsciously or deliberately repeating something "in tongues" that they (and everyone else in the room!) had just heard. We are taught to not "judge" such things but to just let it pass, so who knows?

Once when the pastor was preaching he kept "slipping" into "speaking in tongues" in a manner that we've all probably seen. One guy in the congregation (who had been around for years and was considered 'seasoned') would shout many of the same syllables right back at the pastor. The exchange went back and forth several times until the pastor looked up and appeared to finally notice what was happening. He didn't "slip" into "tongues" again for the rest of the sermon.

What happened? Dunno. I don't doubt the sincerity of either man, but the performance was kind of wacky and ruined the whole service for everyone.

[pelathais]

Some languages, or dialects repeat phrases, or words.

"Honda" used to be one popular example. He even scored a goal for Japan in the World Cup this week.

[easter]

God understands when one speaks in tongues...
1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

To understand the purpose of a prayer language(SEE BELOW)

“26 So too the [Holy] Spirit comes to our aid and bears us up in our weakness; for we do not know what prayer to offer nor how to offer it worthily as we ought, but the Spirit Himself goes to meet our supplication and pleads in our behalf with unspeakable yearnings and groanings too deep for utterance.
27 And He Who searches the hearts of men knows what is in the mind of the [Holy] Spirit [what His intent is], because the Spirit intercedes and pleads [before God] in behalf of the saints according to and in harmony with God's will.” Romans 8:26-27 AMP

[Standards]

Anyone that picks up literature written in Koine Greek, copied in Latin, Middle English and in various forms today, text that relates back 2,000 years, some going back much further than that (Apocryphal and OT canon), different language, culture, time, thought, ideas, entire civilization using different ways of expression, to come back and say "plain and simple" is quite laughable.

What is plain and simple is the story form of Scripture. What is not so plain and simple are many of the details.

I guess men that spend 50-60 years with these Texts are quite "plain and simple" men too.

"Thou shalt not commit adultry". Oh, wait a second. Let's go view church history and the orignial Hebrew to see what this means. I'm glad Moses didn't "examine" everything the LORD told him.

[Standards]

Nope. When I've done a fake before, I argued with myself. When I couldn't get anyone to fight, I just created a fight! :lol

That's my problem here....most of these guys won't fight with me anymore because they can't come up with answers to my questions, so I have to create my own fight! Like Blume....he won't answer my simple request for one verse in the bible where anyone "tried to get the Holy Ghost" and didn't get it.

So maybe I'll just create another character!:D

It's funny. You come on this website and preach the truth and people assume your are a fake. I believe and preach the truth. No comprimise here. You just wish you could say the same.

[allstate1]

It's funny. You come on this website and preach the truth and people assume your are a fake. I believe and preach the truth. No comprimise here. You just wish you could say the same.

Your perception of THE TRUTH is skewed!!

[Standards]

Your perception of THE TRUTH is skewed!!

And YOU need to get YOUR nose out of the latest comic book. Why don't you study the Bible and pray? Have you prayed today?

[allstate1]

And YOU need to get YOUR nose out of the latest comic book. Why don't you study the Bible and pray? Have you prayed today?

Well sure I have!! And I hate comics!

[Justin]

Someone please tell me why so many say the same things over and over.... same short utterances, over & over & over? Is God so limited in His language that that is all He can say? Please I'm not interested in arguing, but would just like someone to explain the whys.......

Don't jump to another subject...just answer why the limited utterances! Please!

Been Thinkin

I've heard that's because of our spirit crying out, not God's spirit talking through us. I do believe there is a difference: when people at my church speak in tongues at the alter, it's usually the same phonics time and time again, but when he have a Tongues & Interpratation, the phonics are all over the place.

[Standards]

Well sure I have!! And I hate comics!

We'll, you must be getting that fictional reality from somewhere. Tom Clancy perhaps? Or those ungodly movies you liberals watch.

[allstate1]

We'll, you must be getting that fictional reality from somewhere. Tom Clancy perhaps? Or those ungodly movies you liberals watch.

Hmm and what fictional reality are you refering? That Holiness has nothing to do with outer garments? What scripture do you get your dress code from?