Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[jfrog]

Jesus also said EXCEPT a man is born of the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingom of God, so receiving the Holy Ghost is indeed a must also.

In John 3:5 Jesus was speaking figuratively. In fact Jesus spoke so figuratively that Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was talking about. In Mark 16:16 Jesus was speaking explicitly. If a figurative passage is ever interpreted in such a way that it contradicts an explicit passage then that interpretation of the figurative passage is wrong. Therefore John 3:5 cannot be interpreted to mean that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation or else John 3:5 would contradict what we just learned from the explicit passage of Mark 16:16.

[BroGary]

In John 3:5 Jesus was speaking figuratively. In fact Jesus spoke so figuratively that Nicodemus had no clue what Jesus was talking about. In Mark 16:16 Jesus was speaking explicitly. If a figurative passage is ever interpreted in such a way that it contradicts an explicit passage then that interpretation of the figurative passage is wrong. Therefore John 3:5 cannot be interpreted to mean that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation or else John 3:5 would contradict what we just learned from the explicit passage of Mark 16:16.

It seems Peter thought otherwise, that is why he preached Acts 2:38 because his understanding was opened by Jesus after the resurrection.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures

[Sam]

No we cannot say the same thing about receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues as I did with repentance. In fact, that was the entire point. We all know someone that believes and was baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. So since there exists people who Jesus said were saved that have not received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues then we must conclude that Jesus was right and those people who have not received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues are saved.

Jesus also said that one of the signs that follows believers is that "they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" but I think many of us know folks who have had hands placed on them but they have not recovered.

[Sam]

Yep, the OT tabernacle plan was an excellent shadow of NT salvation of repentence, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Take the OT tabernacle shadow of baptism for example as to how very important it was -

Exodus 30:20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not....

Who washed with water?
How long before the washing were they born into the priestly family?
Could they have been washed if they had not already been born into the family?
Did the washing take the place of circumcision?
How often did they wash?
Did they get into the water and get dunked in it or just wash with it?
Was the blood and oil applied before, after, or when washing?
How far can we go along with types and shadows and how much doctrine can we build on them?

[Sam]

The thing is that the Holy Ghost was not even available for people to receive until the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was first poured out, so the Acts 2:38 plan of salvation could not be fully obeyed until from the day of Pentecost onward, but from that day forward, the day the NT church was born, it was required.

When were the disciples saved?
When were they born again?
Were any of the disciples included among those that Jesus and others knew who were already born again when He talked to Nicodemus? (John 3:11)
When and by whom were they baptized in water?
Were they unsaved when they went out preaching and healing in Jesus' name and were told that their names were written in Heaven like in Luke 10:20?
Were they clean or not when Jesus told them that they were already clean in John 13:10?

[BroGary]

Jesus also said that one of the signs that follows believers is that "they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" but I think many of us know folks who have had hands placed on them but they have not recovered.

It still requires faith on the part of the receipent.

Even Jesus Himself could not heal people who had unbelief.

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

[BroGary]

When were the disciples saved?
When were they born again?
Were any of the disciples included among those that Jesus and others knew who were already born again when He talked to Nicodemus? (John 3:11)
When and by whom were they baptized in water?
Were they unsaved when they went out preaching and healing in Jesus' name and were told that their names were written in Heaven like in Luke 10:20?
Were they clean or not when Jesus told them that they were already clean in John 13:10?

People could not be born again according to the NT plan of salvation until the Holy Ghost was first poured out on the day of Pentecost.

When Jesus was talking of being born of water and of the Spirit He had to be referring to what would be required AFTER the Spirit was available because people could not be born of the Spirit until the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was first poured out and the NT church was born.

[jfrog]

It seems Peter thought otherwise, that is why he preached Acts 2:38 because his understanding was opened by Jesus after the resurrection.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures

Peter never preached that you had to have the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved. If he did please show me where. Peter said that the Holy Ghost (he never even said if it came with speaking in tongues or not) was a gift and was promised to all those that repent and are baptized.

I think that too many people have an erroneous concept of repentance. Repentance is not about turning from sin. Turning from sin will happen, but its not what repentance is, instead turning from sin is a side effect of repentance. Repentance is turning toward righteousness and righteousness is believing on Jesus, for as the scripture says, with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (Romans 10:9). So, believing on Jesus is the only true turn away from sin for it is the only true turn toward righteousness.

With this in mind it is easy to see how Peter's message of repentance and baptism perfectly parallels Jesus' words in Mark 16:16. Therefore, Peter promised the Holy Ghost to all those that repent and are baptized but since true repentance is to believe on Jesus then he effictively promised the Holy Ghost to all those that believe and are baptized.

This poses a problem for tongues as initial evidence doctrine. Why? Because we all know someone that truly has believed on Jesus and has been baptized that has not received the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. And we know that God is not slack concerning his promises. Therefore, whatever Holy Ghost Peter promised could not have been the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

[jfrog]

Peter never preached that you had to have the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved. If he did please show me where. Peter said that the Holy Ghost (he never even said if it came with speaking in tongues or not) was a gift and was promised to all those that repent and are baptized.

I think that too many people have an erroneous concept of repentance. Repentance is not about turning from sin. Turning from sin will happen, but its not what repentance is, instead turning from sin is a side effect of repentance. Repentance is turning toward righteousness and righteousness is believing on Jesus, for as the scripture says, with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (Romans 10:9). So, believing on Jesus is the only true turn away from sin for it is the only true turn toward righteousness.

With this in mind it is easy to see how Peter's message of repentance and baptism perfectly parallels Jesus' words in Mark 16:16. Therefore, Peter promised the Holy Ghost to all those that repent and are baptized but since true repentance is to believe on Jesus then he effictively promised the Holy Ghost to all those that believe and are baptized.

This poses a problem for tongues as initial evidence doctrine. Why? Because we all know someone that truly has believed on Jesus and has been baptized that has not received the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. And we know that God is not slack concerning his promises. Therefore, whatever Holy Ghost Peter promised could not have been the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

I wanted to add one thing. What sins was Peter telling those men gathered on the day of Pentecost to repent of? There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day. In fact, its even possible that some of them were living a good life and had no sin to actually repent of at the time. What I am trying to say is that in the context of Acts 2, the command to repent doesn't have anything to do with sin but instead with turning toward Jesus by believing on him.

[mfblume]

I wanted to add one thing. What sins was Peter telling those men gathered on the day of Pentecost to repent of? There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day. In fact, its even possible that some of them were living a good life and had no sin to actually repent of at the time. What I am trying to say is that in the context of Acts 2, the command to repent doesn't have anything to do with sin but instead with turning toward Jesus by believing on him.

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:36-38 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (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.

[jfrog]

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:36-38 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (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.



Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets. But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion. But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

[Falla39]

Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets. But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion. But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

Those who crucified Jesus were the children OF those who crucified every
prophet God had sent under the old covenant. The children said if they had
been back in the days of the prophets, they would not have killed them. But
Jesus told them they would fill up the cup of the wrath of God. He knew they
would crucify him. They were OF those who didn't believe the prophets!

They didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They were destroyed at the end
of that age of law-keeping and animal sacrifices. God poured out His wrath for
three and one-half yrs, until Jerusalem was utterly desolate! He destroyed
their city and their temple. The church had left Jerusalem because they heard
Jesus say that when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem, to get out.
He even gave a little "space of grace" for them to get out. Those that believed
Jesus WORDS got out and fled to safety. A remnant was saved. That's all God
needs today! A remnant to believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ! Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever!

We had better believe Jesus words today because he told his disciples that the
words he spake unto them were "spirit and they are life"! Jesus words are still
important today.
We had better not only read them, but believe and obey them. He left simple
instructions with the Apostles. Instructions so simple, a little child could under
stand. He gave the Apostles a kingdom, just as he said his Father had given him.
It was to pass on to those that were afar off, even as many as the Lord their
God would call.
Thank You, Lord God, for including me and mine, and others!

Falla39

[Falla39]

Those who crucified Jesus were the children OF those who crucified every
prophet God had sent under the old covenant. The children said if they had
been back in the days of the prophets, they would not have killed them. But
Jesus told them they would fill up the cup of the wrath of God. He knew they
would crucify him. They were OF those who didn't believe the prophets!

They didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They were destroyed at the end
of that age of law-keeping and animal sacrifices. God poured out His wrath for
three and one-half yrs, until Jerusalem was utterly desolate! He destroyed
their city and their temple. The church had left Jerusalem because they heard
Jesus say that when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem, to get out.
He even gave a little "space of grace" for them to get out. Those that believed
Jesus WORDS got out and fled to safety. A remnant was saved. That's all God
needs today! A remnant to believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ! Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever!

We had better believe Jesus words today because he told his disciples that the
words he spake unto them were "spirit and they are life"! Jesus words are still
important today.
We had better not only read them, but believe and obey them. He left simple
instructions with the Apostles. Instructions so simple, a little child could under
stand. He gave the Apostles a kingdom, just as he said his Father had given him.
It was to pass on to those that were afar off, even as many as the Lord their
God would call.
Thank You, Lord God, for including me and mine, and others!

Falla39

BUMP!

[mfblume]

There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day.They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets.

What am I missing here? THAT WAS MY POINT! :bliss

Read it again:

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.


You asked what they had to repent about, and I told you. Crucifying Jesus. You said there was nothing stated that they had to repent over. I showed you were wrong. I said they directly caused the crucifixion, where as we did indirectly.

But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion.

Right, and that was what they had to repent about.

But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

Right. But that was what they had to repent over. Was not the point the question of what specific thing did they have to repent about? You said nothing was told to them, and I say it was.

There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day.

[jfrog]

What am I missing here? THAT WAS MY POINT! :bliss

Read it again:




You asked what they had to repent about, and I told you. Crucifying Jesus. You said there was nothing stated that they had to repent over. I showed you were wrong. I said they directly caused the crucifixion, where as we did indirectly.



Right, and that was what they had to repent about.



Right. But that was what they had to repent over. Was not the point the question of what specific thing did they have to repent about? You said nothing was told to them, and I say it was.

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do. It just makes no sense that he would have or that they could have. What does make sense is that he told the people of Israel to turn to God by believing on Christ so that they wouldn't be like their brethren that were directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Peter never ever insinuated that anyone was indirectly responsible for Christ's death.

[mfblume]

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

Peter told them they crucified the Lord, and that is what he meant when he told them to repent. It matters not how we assess the picture, that is what Peter meant. You asked for the sin, I gave it per Peter's words.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do.

He said "YOU" crucified Him and said "YOU" repent. You just have to disagree with Peter.

[jfrog]

Peter told them they crucified the Lord, and that is what he meant when he told them to repent. It matters not how we assess the picture, that is what Peter meant. You asked for the sin, I gave it per Peter's words.



He said YOU crucified Him and said YOU repent. You just have to disagree with Peter.

They did not crucify Jesus therefore that can't be what Peter meant.

[Falla39]

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do. It just makes no sense that he would have or that they could have. What does make sense is that he told the people of Israel to turn to God by believing on Christ so that they wouldn't be like their brethren that were directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Peter never ever insinuated that anyone was indirectly responsible for Christ's death.

If you want to know who was responsible for Christ's crucifiction, read Acts
6 and 7. The children of those who killed every prophet in the Old Testament.
They were OF their father. The fruit will show what/who the "father" was.

Those who are OF THE FATHER will know His name! They will hear His Voice.
They will follow HIM. Those who refuse to hear HIS Voice will not follow Him,
neither will they be called by His Name! The Word says the Lord knows those
who are His.

The pear may tell his friends all day long, "I am a peach". But that doesn't
make it so.
If we call ourself a Christian, don't you think it ought to show. If it really
makes no difference, How the people gonna know!
You'll know them by their fruit. Love, peace, joy...for starters!

Falla39

[mfblume]

They did not crucify Jesus therefore that can't be what Peter meant.

He told them they did!

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Acts 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


Do not stretch reason, bro. However way one slices it, Peter said they crucified the Lord. Accept what Peter said and adjust your thoughts accordingly.

[jfrog]

He told them they did!

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Acts 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


Do not stretch reason, bro. However way one slices it, Peter said they crucified the Lord. Accept what Peter said and adjust your thoughts accordingly.

They as individuals did not crucify Jesus though. Definetely not directly which is what Peter claimed someone did. Therefore Peter wasn't saying they did something that they didn't do.

They as a nation did crucify Jesus.

[mfblume]

They as individuals did not crucify Jesus though. Definetely not directly which is what Peter claimed someone did. Therefore Peter wasn't saying they did something that they didn't do.

They as a nation did crucify Jesus.

Brother, the context is plain. Whatever conclusion you want to draw from Peter's words, the fact is Peter said YE CRUCIFIED, they asked WHAT SHALL WE DO, and Peter said Repent. If you are right they would have said, "Wait a minute! We never directly crucified him. Go and tell someone else they crucified him and they need to repent, but do not tell some of us, since some of us did not do that." But they took his words, never argued with them, and asked what they should do as a result. You are really reaching here to avoid this, bro.

Peter: YE

People: WE?

Peter: REPENT

When did YE no longer mean YE? Peter told some people whom he called "YE" that they crucified the Lord, and that was sin people had to repent of. Obviously it is the ones to whom he preached. I say YOU when I speak to you, do I not? And the ones who asked what should they do were the ones Peter told to repent. Seems perfectly plain to me.

[jfrog]

Brother, the context is plain. Whatever conclusion you want to draw from Peter's words, the fact is Peter said YE CRUCIFIED, they asked WHAT SHALL WE DO, and Peter said Repent. If you are right they would have said, "Wait a minute! We never directly crucified him. Go and tell someone else they crucified him and they need to repent, but do not tell some of us, since some of us did not do that." But they took his words, never argued with them, and asked what they should do as a result. You are really reaching here to avoid this, bro.

Peter: YE

People: WE?

Peter: REPENT

When did YE no longer mean YE? Peter told some people whom he called "YE" that they crucified the Lord, and that was sin people had to repent of. Obviously it is the ones to whom he preached. I say YOU when I speak to you, do I not? And the ones who asked what should they do were the ones Peter told to repent. Seems perfectly plain to me.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In Acts 2:36 "ye" refers to all the house of Israel. If all the house of Israel are directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion then so are the apostles for they were of the house of Israel. The fact is that no where in the story of Christ's crucifixion is every jew said to have taken part in it. In fact it is quite clear that every Jew did not. Did Peter or any of the other apostles? Surely you will answer no. But that is what Peter said, that all the house of Israel crucified Jesus. The fact is that not every Jew was involved in Jesus being crucified, the apostles being the best examples. So you must go back to the drawing board about applying the guilt of Christ's death directly to all individual jews.

[mfblume]

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In Acts 2:36 "ye" refers to all the house of Israel. If all the house of Israel are directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion then so are the apostles for they were of the house of Israel.

You overcomplicate a simple issue. If Peter felt he addressed those people as the house of Israel in part, then so be it. The point is he said YE.

'Nuff said. You know you lost this one, bro. :lol

[jfrog]

You overcomplicate a simple issue. If Peter felt he addressed those people as the house of Israel in part, then so be it. The point is he said YE.

'Nuff said. You know you lost this one, bro. :lol

Lol. Whatever Blume. You at least try to answer questions most the time. But it doesn't take you too long to get to doing the same ole thing most others do. Avoiding the direct questions and just keeping on throwing out points as at if by avoiding the question and saying something else you have answered the question.

[jfrog]

All the individuals of Israel were not directly involved in Christ's crucifixion regardless of what Peter said. I don't believe Peter ever said they were though.

[mfblume]

Lol. Whatever Blume. You at least try to answer questions most the time. But it doesn't take you too long to get to doing the same ole thing most others do. Avoiding the direct questions and just keeping on throwing out points as at if by avoiding the question and saying something else you have answered the question.

Brother, the answer is obvious no matter how you slice it. Come on.

[jfrog]

Brother, the answer is obvious no matter how you slice it. Come on.

The answer is obvious. In no way shape or form can it be argued or substantiated that all the individual jews were directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

[Socialite]

Every person I've ever known to receive the Holy Ghost, always, without fail, spoke in another tongue. Seems that was also evident in the folks mentioned in the Bible who received it.

Would you have acknowledged them with "receiving the Spirit" otherwise?

That's a loaded observation don't you think? :)

They could have had an incredible experience, but after we listened for tongues, our futile efforts are capped up with the reassurance of "You were sooooooooo close." *hug*

[Falla39]

Just as a mother giving birth in the natural, she listens for a certain sound,
a cry!
I believe the church (mother) also listens for a certain sound from the born-again
child of God. I believe other tongues are that sound of those born from above. It
is a sound from heaven! Natural man born again, from above. First that which is
natural, then the spiritual. Not the other way around. Except a MAN be born again....

I believe just as a woman and her doctor can together plan a natural abortion,
I believe that another spirit, can come into a church (mother) and perform spiritual
abortion, or even spiritual partial-birth abortion. Of course this procedure would be
planned by another spirit and the mother (church or individual) that accepted or
devised this "spiritual" plan. Who would have ever thought some "Christians"
would have ever accepted abortion, much less legalizing it.

I don't believe any kind of abortion was planned by Almighty GOD! An enemy
planned that!
Wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes!

Falla39

[Digging4Truth]

Just as a mother giving birth in the natural, she listens for a certain sound,
a cry!
I believe the church (mother) also listens for a certain sound from the born-again
child of God. I believe other tongues are that sound of those born from above. It
is a sound from heaven! Natural man born again, from above. First that which is
natural, then the spiritual. Not the other way around. Except a MAN be born again....

I believe just as a woman and her doctor can together plan a natural abortion,
I believe that another spirit, can come into a church (mother) and perform spiritual
abortion, or even spiritual partial-birth abortion. Of course this procedure would be
planned by another spirit and the mother (church or individual) that accepted or
devised this "spiritual" plan. Who would have ever thought some "Christians"
would have ever accepted abortion, much less legalizing it.

I don't believe any kind of abortion was planned by Almighty GOD! An enemy
planned that!
Wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes!

Falla39

That's a nice analogy Sister Falla.

But, at the end of the day, it is simply an analogy and it is a flawed one IMO.

But taking it seriously for just a moment let's take a look.

We look for a sound. A cry. Okay... I'm not going to delve into that much.

But... if they don't cry... who is it that aborts them? Even partial birth abortions? It is those who look for the sound as absolute and total proof without which life is not believed to have occured.

Look... the baby is breathing... Yeah... but he didn't cry... so close. Too bad.

But there's life there. Yeah... but he didn't cry. Maybe he'll cry later.

And then those who believe that life can indeed bring a cry but that life does not absolutely need a cry to exist will be the ones who work with this life and bring it to full strength.

Not the cry seekers... for they do not believe life has come unless they hear a cry.

The term translated spirit is from the term Pneuma...meaning air. It takes air to cry... but a cry isn't the only expression of air. As long as there is air... there is spirit... if that air is used to cry... wonderful. But if there is no cry... but there is air (Pneuma... Spirit)... then there is life and I won't be caught denying that.

The cry is made possible by air.
Tongues are made possible by the Spirit (Pneuma)
When there is air/spirit/pneuma... and yet no cry... there is life and our job is to nurture that life. Not deny it's existence.

[mfblume]

The answer is obvious. In no way shape or form can it be argued or substantiated that all the individual jews were directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

Then Peter was out of his mind when he told the crowd on the day of Pentecost that they crucified the Lord, and his words are nonsense. Nothing else explains the purpose of his words. Please make sense out of that for me, for I see the YE being the YE and the WE the WE. You claim he was not talking to them all. Then why did 3000 of them repent that day if he told the ones who crucified the Lord to repent?

You sound like someone who disagrees with a viewpoint but has no explanation to the contrary to answer the actual context.

[Falla39]

Just as I related in an earlier post on this thread, about a man who was seeking for
the Holy Ghost. He seemed to be getting close to receiving the Spirit. Then he stopped coming to he alter altogether. His wife told me his Baptist mother, who visited a few times, told him he was saved. Said he didn't need to speak in tongues. Evidently he believed Momma, who had never never spoken in tongues either. Leading me to believe this was a type of spiritual abortion. Those who take the Word of God out of hearts that are hungry, are "aborting" the spiritual babe that was being formed inside.

No, sad to say, F--- never seemed the same after Momma interferred. I know of other cases very much the same. When that spirit that says you do not have to be born again as the scripture has said, gets into a church (through whatever means it came in), all those that believe that spirit, could be spiritually aborted! Abortion,. just as divorce, sins of all kinds, etc., etc., are in the church now.

We know some prominant denominal people in our city, who were supposely against abortion. UNTIL their son got a girl pregnant, who they didn't want their son to marry. They had great plans for his future and a baby out of wedlock, did not fit into THEIR plans. These parents met with the girl's parents and suggested abortion. They would not go along with this at all. They were of the same faith as the boy's parents. They told the boy's parents, they would have no part regarding abortion. They planned a simple, yet quick marriage. Right after they married, the girl miscarried. This couple have been married for many yrs and have four grown children and at least one grandchild. He is an attorney and she stayed home with her children all these yrs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I sat in front of a precious lady last night at church. Sitting next to her was my youngest sister. They graduated from high school together in 1976. This lady and my sister were good friends in school and her younger sister was best friends with our eldest daughter. They graduated together.
Many years ago, this lady and her husband with their two small sons, came to the church my late father founded. Both of their families fought them, telling them all the reasons our church was wrong. They quit coming. Yrs later, life brought situations her way that caused her to call our eldest daughter. In desperation. She and her best friend, who also graduated with her and my youngest sister, came to church again, both received the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance.
Both were baptized in Jesus Name. You could not convince them against this
experience. No one had to tell them they received the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Much joy came with the Spirit.
Suffice it to say I believe an enemy had done much to try to destroy the church of the Living God. But the gates of hell will never destroy the church Jesus is building or has built.
I have said none of this to be disrespectful to anyone!

Falla39

[Digging4Truth]

All thoughts from perception. Perception creates our reality for us sometimes.

Of 21 conversions in the word... 18 never mention tongues.

That's a lot of abortions right there.

[mfblume]

All thoughts from perception. Perception creates our reality for us sometimes.

Of 21 conversions in the word... 18 never mention tongues.

That's a lot of abortions right there.

Not mentioning tongues does not mean they did not occur. That is an argument from silence. It does not prove it nor disprove it. The point is that all major groups of people who were converted have tongues involved as known by the information provided. No need to repeat it every time it occurred.

[Digging4Truth]

Not mentioning tongues does not mean they did not occur. That is an argument from silence. It does not prove it nor disprove it.

Agreed completely. Would that we could all agree on that.

The point is that all major groups of people who were converted have tongues involved as known by the information provided. No need to repeat it every time it occurred.

Indeed... because tongues is a sign for the unbeliever. Tongues occurred on the Day of Pentecost. It was the initial outpouring.

Tongues occurred when Cornelius and his household received the Holy Ghost. It was the initial outpouring on a Gentile.

Tongues occurred with the 12 men at Corinth who had already heard & believed all of the gospel they had heard not knowing that there was more. There were 12 of them... and they spoke with tongues & prophesied. Did they all speak with tongues AND all prophesy? Did some speak with tongues and some prophesy? Any answer to those questions is mere speculation.

Paul said he was glad he speaks with tongues more than all of them. I speak with tongues. I spoke with tongues last night.

I was raised pentecostal and attend a UPC church and to tell you the truth my upbringing wants to see it. It has been born & bred in me that when there's no tongues there's no ghost.

But I can't back that up beyond the shadow of any doubt in scripture. I can speculate... I can fill in my own blanks... but I cannot explicitly demonstrate that premise in scripture.

We state "receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues" like it's a scripture or something.

I wish EVERYBODY spoke in tongues... because I'm an unbeliver... and I need the sign. Let's face it... we pentecostals... we're ALL unbelievers... until we see that sign.

I fight with this need that has been bred in me. I was raised to look for that sign and I want everybody to do it... not just for me... but for themselves.

But my statement is this. At the end of the day I cannot explicitly demonstrate in the word of God that tongues is THE sign of the Holy Ghost without which there is no salvation.

I can't show it.

And until I can... I refuse to treat people as unsaved people because they haven't fulfilled my pentecostal upbringing. As I have mentioned before I have seen people get up from an altar CHANGED. Really, really changed with changes they had not been able to make in the whole of their lives and multiple big changes that were immediate which caused people not only from church but from work and school to be in awe asking "what got into you?".

But they never spoke in tongues... sometimes they even stammered some... but when they got up... feeling something they had never experienced in their lives... they were told...maybe next time and that was the beginning of the end for some of them as freshly tilled dirt that had been tilled and made fresh and new by the Spirit of God was quickly planted by God's own with a seed of doubt.

Tongues is A sign. I can demonstrate that without any doubt.

Tongues is THE sign without which there is no salvation? Sorry. I can't demonstrate that and I've never met anyone else who could either although I've met many who thought they could.

[Falla39]

All thoughts from perception. Perception creates our reality for us sometimes.

Of 21 conversions in the word... 18 never mention tongues.

That's a lot of abortions right there.


Of all the natural births, how many are mentioned that they cried.

No, unless something is wrong, every newborn baby WILL CRY. THE
WILL make a sound! They could be still-born, or aborted in the womb,
or as in partial-birth abortion, they were pulled out, except for the head,
and they would twist a pair of scissors into the back of its litle neck and
kill it before the head could come out and CRY... make a sound!
May God Almighty have mercy on America, and the church!!

Blessings,

Falla39

[Digging4Truth]

Of all the natural births, how many are mentioned that they cried.

No, unless something is wrong, every newborn baby WILL CRY. THE
WILL make a sound! They could be still-born, or aborted in the womb,
or as in partial-birth abortion, they were pulled out, except for the head,
and they would twist a pair of scissors into the back of its litle neck and
kill it before the head could come out and CRY... make a sound!
May God Almighty have mercy on America, and the church!!

Blessings,

Falla39

Sister. I love you so much. You are such a sweet lady. And I am certainly not saying this or anything else I have stated in this thread in a "I know I'm right... I know you're wrong" fashion because I don't. But really... that's the whole point.
l
But your analogy is not scripture and you are treating it as if it were.

[Falla39]

All thoughts from perception. Perception creates our reality for us sometimes.

Of 21 conversions in the word... 18 never mention tongues.

That's a lot of abortions right there.



How many witnesses (conversions) do you need. In the mouth
of two or three witnesses, let every word be established. A court
of law will accept two or three witnesses.

[Digging4Truth]

How many witnesses (conversions) do you need. In the mouth
of two or three witnesses, let every word be established. A court
of law will accept two or three witnesses.

Yes ma'am. And in the court of law I would stand with you and testify that, yes, tongues do exist. Tongues are real. Tongues are a sign. Tongues are for today.

But these are not 2 or 3 statements that tongues are the absolute sign without which there is no salvation. These are statements that certain people did speak in tongues.

It is only when these examples are viewed through a mindset that already believes that tongues are the absolute sign without which there is no salvation and, then, imposes that preconceive thought process onto these 2 or 3 examples that the conclusion you have proposed becomes a reality. But I can find no scripture upon which to base that preconception.

[mfblume]

Yes ma'am. And in the court of law I would stand with you and testify that, yes, tongues do exist. Tongues are real. Tongues are a sign. Tongues are for today.

But these are not 2 or 3 statements that tongues are the absolute sign without which there is no salvation. These are statements that certain people did speak in tongues.

It is only when these examples are viewed through a mindset that already believes that tongues are the absolute sign without which there is no salvation and, then, imposes that preconceive thought process onto these 2 or 3 examples that the conclusion you have proposed becomes a reality.

Many believe that the baptism of the Spirit is not necessary for salvation, but that tongues are THE initial evidence of this baptism. What are your thoughts on that?

[Digging4Truth]

Many believe that the baptism of the Spirit is not necessary for salvation, but that tongues are THE initial evidence of this baptism. What are your thoughts on that?

The Holy Ghost is a gift.

We were told in Acts 2:38... Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. This scripture makes it clear that this is necessary for salvation.

The scripture goes on to say to those who fulfill these necessary things... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Every one who repents and is baptized in Jesus name shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why would someone discuss the necessity of the gift? I don't even understand their thinking. It is a promise to those who repent and are baptized in Jesus name.

[mfblume]

The Holy Ghost is a gift.

We were told in Acts 2:38... Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. This scripture makes it clear that this is necessary for salvation.

The scripture goes on to say to those who fulfill these necessary things... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Every one who repents and is baptized in Jesus name shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why would someone discuss the necessity of the gift? I don't even understand their thinking. It is a promise to those who repent and are baptized in Jesus name.

That did not answer my question as to whether or not tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

[Digging4Truth]

That did not answer my question as to whether or not tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

I thought that is what this whole discussion was about. I cannot conclusively say that tongues is THE (initial) evidence of the Holy Ghost.

I would think that was very clear by now.

[Sam]

12 God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him.
Ephesians 1:12-14 NLT

If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God"
1 John 5:1 TLB

It is my understanding that when one turns to Jesus in faith, at that moment Jesus:
washes away all sin;
comes in to live as the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ;
births the person into the family of God;
identifies the new born child with His name and nature;
seals the believer with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption;
makes the person a new creature/creation in Christ;
baptizes/places the person into the Body of Christ;
writes his name in the book of life;
gives eternal life;
translates the person from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God;


After this initial justification/salvation/conversion/regeneration there are other benefits/blessings available such as:
water baptism
Holy Spirit Baptism
the written Word
fruit of the Spirit
gifts of the Spirit
growth
guidance

[TGBTG]

Many believe that the baptism of the Spirit is not necessary for salvation, but that tongues are THE initial evidence of this baptism. What are your thoughts on that?

I have to say I have really enjoyed the discussions so far I've had on AFF...and I'm pretty sure there is NOT a single person who knows it all. Also, it seems like the issues of tongues and salvation have a lot of threads..lol. I believe it ALWAYS takes illumination from the HolySpirit to catch what the word is saying no matter how much we study Greek/Hebrew.

Having said that, I believe most (if not all) on here believe there is an experience which WE have come to term as the Baptism of the HolyGhost. Whether this experience is subsequent or pertinent to salvation is where I believe the crux of the matter lies?

(From my little understanding of scriptures), I'll love for us take a look at a couple of scriptures and I'll love to see what your intake of them..

Here goes.. (For full context, please read entire chapter prayerfully)

Acts 18
23 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (I am of the opinion that disciples here refer to followers of Christ)

We see Paul travelling to places strengthening the disciples. The next time we hear of Paul is in chapter 19

Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (Note that the writer of Acts called these people Paul met disciples, which makes sense since Paul's mission on this journey was to strengthen the disciples.

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost

We know the rest of the story from there...they got rebaptized, hands laid on, and spoke in tongues.

My line of reasoning here it seems that the HGB in this account was to strenghten those who were christian already...(Pls, let me know your opinion)

[mfblume]

I thought that is what this whole discussion was about. I cannot conclusively say that tongues is THE (initial) evidence of the Holy Ghost.

I would think that was very clear by now.

I have not read all the many pages of this long thread. So when you said what you did, I asked you this particular question since you seemed to be equating tongues with salvation in what you do not believe rather than the actual doctrinal issue of tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism, whether the baptism is a gift or not.

This raises the question as to whether salvation is a gift, too.

[TGBTG]

Continued...

Also, if we consider Mark 16:16 and the story in Acts 8
Should we not consider those Samaritan folks saved before Peter and John came to lay hands on them?

I am not trying to say the HGB baptism is optional (obviously our Lord Jesus Christ thought it important for Him to tell the apostles to wait for the PROMISE of the Father).

It seems like we will not have a concesus on this issue. However, my question would be why would anyone NOT want to receive the Baptism of the HolyGhost even if it is not for salvation?

As for the initial evidence of the HGB being tongues..
I would say preach what Paul preached.

Paul said: Have you received the HolyGhost since you believed?

He did NOT say: Have you received the HolyGhost since you believed with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues?

If we preach it like Paul preached it, no one would have to tell the recepient that they received the HGB. They would know themselves because..

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God

Moreover, anyone who received the HGB can testify to the dramatic change that occured in their lives...

[Sam]

...
We know the rest of the story from there...they got rebaptized, hands laid on, and spoke in tongues.

My line of reasoning here it seems that the HGB in this account was to strenghten those who were christian already...(Pls, let me know your opinion)

Well I was a Christian, my life had been transformed. I was a new creature in Christ. My sins were forgiven and washed away. Jesus had come into my heart and sealed me with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. I fasted, prayed, witnessed and read my Bible. I had been baptized by immersion. I had confidence according to 1 John 5:1, 11-13 that I had eternal life. I was a church member --had been voted in by the other members. I was a Baptist, and like those Baptists in Acts 19:1-7, I found out about water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and about the Holy Ghost Baptism and I walked in that light. That happened over half a century ago.

[TGBTG]

Well I was a Christian, my life had been transformed. I was a new creature in Christ. My sins were forgiven and washed away. Jesus had come into my heart and sealed me with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. I fasted, prayed, witnessed and read my Bible. I had been baptized by immersion. I had confidence according to 1 John 5:1, 11-13 that I had eternal life. I was a church member --had been voted in by the other members. I was a Baptist, and like those Baptists in Acts 19:1-7, I found out about water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and about the Holy Ghost Baptism and I walked in that light. That happened over half a century ago.

Bro Sam,

That is exactly what I am seeing from Acts 19, that is Paul was going about strengthening those disciples (followers of Christ).

When Appollos met Priscilla and Aquila, they expounded more to him (to use your words: Aquila WALKED in that Light, Amen!!!)

As for me, the HGB was a dramatic point in my life. I was kinda flip flopy (lukewarm) in my Christian walk until I had the HGB. On the other hand, my mom was already a fire-brand christian, even before she got the HGB.

As for tongues, I would not call it evidence of the HGB. I see it more as accompanying me. Apart from tongues, I felt an overwhemling joy and boldness to speak about Christ like never before. So much love flooded my soul on that day. It was beyond the joy of my salvation experience. If I did not speak with tongues that day, the witness I had within me and the boldness for Christ was enough evidence for me. If you don't mind, could you share your experience of the HGB since yours was also subsequent to salvation?

[Jason B]

All thoughts from perception. Perception creates our reality for us sometimes.

Of 21 conversions in the word... 18 never mention tongues.

That's a lot of abortions right there.

Exactly.

Theres is alot of stories, analogies, and experiences being shared from those who favor initial evidence doctrine, but little to no scriptural support.

[Falla39]

Exactly.

Theres is alot of stories, analogies, and experiences being shared from those who favor initial evidence doctrine, but little to no scriptural support.

Could it be that there are those who do not recognize stories, analogies and
experiences, that are actually based on scriptural principals. But they don't
recognize points UNLESS they are posted in quotation marks, complete with
where it is found. Then there is the leading of the Spirit!

Jesus had his reasons for used parables, etc. The prophet Nathan used a
story when confronting David of his sin. David got the point! He repented!
He didn't try to argue his way out! David feared God, which is the beginning
of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Falla39

[Digging4Truth]

Jesus had his reasons for used parables, etc.

Yes ma'am. And the reason was... to keep the truth hidden from those who only see in part.

We aren't trying to hide the truth from one another here I wouldn't think.

When we use parables most of the time or use them often without scriptural basis then we leave ourselves open to be led astray by the most deceitful thing there is. Our hearts.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Could it be that there are those who do not recognize stories, analogies and
experiences, that are actually based on scriptural principals. But they don't
recognize points UNLESS they are posted in quotation marks, complete with
where it is found. Then there is the leading of the Spirit!

Jesus had his reasons for used parables, etc. The prophet Nathan used a
story when confronting David of his sin. David got the point! He repented!
He didn't try to argue his way out! David feared God, which is the beginning
of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Falla39

We emphasize so much on following the Bible, but we embrace and teach as fact doctrines that are not exactly codified by the Holy scriptures.

[mfblume]

It has to mean something for the Jewish believers to notice that the Gentiles were filled the SAME WAY they were, and tongues were noted. NOTHING ELSE says one way or another about initial evidence. Initial evidence was an issue.

Sorry, brethren. I stick to the idea, myself. :thumbsup

I went around in bouts with good brethren here who claim one receives the Spirit into one's life before Spirit Baptism, and we showed that it cannot be proved that Acts 2 had people get both dual experiences of what they call the Spirit entrance and Spirit baptism. We discussed the issue of the various terms applied to the experience in Acts 2. Infilling, outpouring, baptism, etc. And as much as onesteppers claim there steppers cannot conclusively prove their point, neither can onesteppers.

[Digging4Truth]

It has to mean something for the Jewish believers to notice that the Gentiles were filled the SAME WAY they were, and tongues were noted. NOTHING ELSE says one way or another about initial evidence. Initial evidence was an issue.

Sorry, brethren. I stick to the idea, myself. :thumbsup

Agreed.

In keeping with scripture...

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe

The three times tongues are mentioned in the Bible were all times where unbelief would be an issue. All three are in keeping with these scriptures.

And... don't get me wrong... as I have stated before I speak in tongues... I want all to speak in tongues. I'm not against tongues. I'm actually for tongues. I am for everyone speaking in tongues.

I just cannot see outside a well honed life long preconception that scripture makes any explicit statement whatsoever that there is never a person saved or filled with the Holy Ghost sans tongues.

You can read it and reason with what you feel is implicit but a doctrine that damns every single person who does not speak in tongues without prejudice with not one explicit scripture is farther than I'm willing to go.

I wish I could find one because my upbringing screams to see them speak in tongues but my allegiance is to what thus sayeth the word of the Lord and not to what implications I might feel the word is making.

If the word of God said even one time that tongues is THE absolute evidence without which all others are hell bound then i wouldn't waver in my support. This thought is not explicitly found in scripture and the three examples of tongues given are all in keeping with scripture given concerning the purpose of tongues.

I welcome anything explicit. I welcome anything other more substantial than... "see they did it there". As a matter of fact I desire it. I hunger for it.

As of yet... I can't find it.

[Pressing-On]

It has to mean something for the Jewish believers to notice that the Gentiles were filled the SAME WAY they were, and tongues were noted. NOTHING ELSE says one way or another about initial evidence. Initial evidence was an issue.

Sorry, brethren. I stick to the idea, myself. :thumbsup

I went around in bouts with good brethren here who claim one receives the Spirit into one's life before Spirit Baptism, and we showed that it cannot be proved that Acts 2 had people get both dual experiences of what they call the Spirit entrance and Spirit baptism. We discussed the issue of the various terms applied to the experience in Acts 2. Infilling, outpouring, baptism, etc. And as much as onesteppers claim three steppers cannot conclusively prove their point, neither can onesteppers.
I would take that further and say that three steppers (although I don't care for that term) have more conclusive, visible evidence than a one-stepper with our eyes closed and hands tied behind our backs. Just sayin'..... :)

[Falla39]

Yes ma'am. And the reason was... to keep the truth hidden from those who only see in part.

We aren't trying to hide the truth from one another here I wouldn't think.

When we use parables most of the time or use them often without scriptural basis then we leave ourselves open to be led astray by the most deceitful thing there is. Our hearts.

Is it possible that some just cannot see/relate to the scriptural basis. I don't
say that to be disrespectful at all. I have seen these things for over fifty yrs.,
over and over and over. I have seen those who believed ALL of the message
of the Apostolic plan of salvation and those who refused part.

Out of the reported, approximate, 1500 that came and heard the same
message that my late grandmother heard in 1926, most refused it. But O,
how thankful I am that she heard more, searched it out, believed the Word
and promptly obeyed it, with her young son, my late father, who was 14 when
he was baptized, 15 when he received the Holy Ghost, 9 months later, speak-
ing with tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance. His mother received
it immediately after she repented and was baptized in Jesus Name.

Most of the 1500 spectors remained as they were. I know what it has done
for our family. It has made all the difference. My husband of 51 yrs, and I sit
among five of our six children and their families every week. We still enbrace
what our elders embraced back then. I am speaking of the plan of salvation.
Our other son and his family, attend a neighboring city apostolic church near
their home.
We love the TRUTH that has set us free! HE whom the Son sets free, is FREE
INDEED! Within ourselves, we have absolutely nothing to brag or glory in. But
in the Cross of Jesus Christ, who came that we might have life, and that more
abundantly! I PRAISE HIS NAME! JESUS!

I wasn't born when Grandma and Dad received the New Testament plan of
salvation. but the decision they made, not only changed their lives but made
it easier for the rest of their family, coming behind.

It may not apply to you (and I do love you too!) But there are those who do
understand and relate to these things. I usually hear from them by PM, or
email.

Blessings,
Falla39

[TGBTG]

Bro Blume (and anyone else), would you mind considering this line of thought
P.S. I don't think it's a matter of who's right, but rather a matter of edifying one another...(We all know in part, btw)

(From my little understanding of scriptures), I'll love for us take a look at a couple of scriptures and I'll love to see your intake of them..

Here goes.. (For full context, please read entire chapter prayerfully)

Acts 18
23 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (I am of the opinion that disciples here refer to followers of Christ)

We see Paul travelling to places strengthening the disciples. The next time we hear of Paul is in chapter 19

Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (Note that the writer of Acts called these people Paul met disciples, which makes sense since Paul's mission on this journey was to strengthen the disciples.

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost

We know the rest of the story from there...they got rebaptized, hands laid on, and spoke in tongues.

As of the time Paul met these disciples, he figured they had believed on Christ, but perhaps not yet received the HGB. Hence he asked them that question. Now contrast this scenario with

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God

My line of reasoning here it seems that the HGB from this account was to strenghten those who were christian already...

Pls, let me know your opinion

[Falla39]

We emphasize so much on following the Bible, but we embrace and teach as fact doctrines that are not exactly codified by the Holy scriptures.

The doctrine of Christ is his death, burial and resurrection. Repentance,
baptism in Jesus Name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost (which brings
the power)is the New Testament (New Covenant) plan of salvation.
Jesus was WITH his disciples, telling them he was with them, But would
be IN them. They obeyed the gospel and were empowered to be witnesses,
to be overcomers. Those who are LED by the SPIRIT of GOD, ARE the sons
and daughters of the ALMIGHTY!!!

Falla39

[TGBTG]

I would take that further and say that three steppers (although I don't care for that term) have more conclusive, visible evidence than a one-stepper with our eyes closed and hands tied behind our backs. Just sayin'..... :)

PO,

What is the third step? I thought it was only Repent and be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ... As for receivng the HolyGhost, I believe that step can only be carried out by God. Correct me if I'm wrong though..

[mfblume]

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it. :D

[Digging4Truth]

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it. :D

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

[Pressing-On]

Bro Blume (and anyone else), would you mind considering this line of thought
P.S. I don't think it's a matter of who's right, but rather a matter of edifying one another...(We all know in part, btw)

Originally Posted by TGBTG View Post
(From my little understanding of scriptures), I'll love for us take a look at a couple of scriptures and I'll love to see your intake of them..

Here goes.. (For full context, please read entire chapter prayerfully)

Acts 18
23 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (I am of the opinion that disciples here refer to followers of Christ)

We see Paul travelling to places strengthening the disciples. The next time we hear of Paul is in chapter 19

Yes, Paul did do that. The Book of Acts correlates with the Epistles, so we do need to keep that in mind and that it was written over a period of years. It seems as though you are thinking the timeline is a day to day account, but as we see, it is not.

Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (Note that the writer of Acts called these people Paul met disciples, which makes sense since Paul's mission on this journey was to strengthen the disciples.

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost

We know the rest of the story from there...they got rebaptized, hands laid on, and spoke in tongues.


That is an interesting perception at the outset, except that on further study, if they were already saved then why instruct them to have a further understanding of being baptized in His name and being filled with His Spirit? It was obviously very important to Paul to have them know and understand this. It is the same message Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. Nothing is changing here.

A disciple is defined as a "pupil" and a "learner", which we all should be. I think that if Peter, Paul, etc., being called "disciples" as well, did not continue in the faith, they would not be saved in the end. So, I'm not sure calling anyone a "disciple" does anything but recognize we are on the path, having not already obtained, but pressing toward the mark.

As of the time Paul met these disciples, he figured they had believed on Christ, but perhaps not yet received the HGB. Hence he asked them that question. Now contrast this scenario with[

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God

My line of reasoning here it seems that the HGB from this account was to strenghten those who were christian already...

Pls, let me know your opinion
Well, just believing is a start, but the Word does also say:

Regarding baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

Regarding repentance: "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)

And regarding the Holy Ghost/Spirit: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:8)

A "gift" is not something that we could ever give ourselves. That is why the Holy Ghost is referred to as a "gift" and the "promise".

Peter identifies this "promise" and the evidence thereof in Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

And please note that even though we cannot give ourselves this gift, Jesus "commanded" the Disciples/Apostles to "tarry" and "wait" in Jerusalem until they received it.

"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49)

"And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me." (Acts 1:4)

[mfblume]

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?
Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

I may have bought that line of reasoning except that when you study "gift", that gift is identified as tongues, as per, Acts 2:33, Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:17.

Acts 2:18 says that He would pour out His Spirit and then they would prophesy. Being that tongues is spoken of in the way it is, I would have to assume that is the initial evidence.

If Saul, who prophesied, was actually spirit filled, then why would Jesus need to die on the cross and resurrect so that He could send the Comforter? I believe Saul was moved on by the Holy Spirit, but certainly not Spirit filled.

In studying "gifts", as in, Romans 12:6, "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;", I find that 1 Corinthians 12:4, is saying there are diverse gifts being given from that one and self-same Spirit - "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."

IMO, it implies a universal Spirit given to operate the others. It one and self-same spirit that allows us to operate, as the NT Church, in other areas - prophesy, tongues and interpretation, discerning of spirits, etc. (I Cor 12:8-10)

[Digging4Truth]

Not to the degree tongues is, when we consider everyone is meant to pray in tongues.

Have you seen the long list of scriptures where people being filled with the spirit was evidenced by prophesying I listed in my Prophesying Versus Speaking In Tongues thread?

1. On the day of Pentecost Peter said of what was going on... THIS IS THAT. This is that spoken of by the prophet Joel. Did Joel said your sons & daughters will speak in tongues? He didn't. He said your sons & daughters will prophesy. The people heard them, in their own tongue, tell the wonderful works of God. This is very similar to what we find Zacharias said when he began to prophesy (as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit).

Since Joel said their sons & daughters would prophesy... and what the countrymen heard these men saying (in their own tongue) sounds similar to what Zacharias uttered as prophesy... and since Peter said this is that... Can't we find it hard to rule out that what these men heard (in their own tongue) was people prophesying?

It is clear that in Acts 19 there were 12 men who received the Holy Spirit and they spake in tongues and prophesied. What reason would we have to assume that all 12 spoke and tongues... and then all 12 prophesied? Can't we find it hard to rule out that when they were filled with the Holy Spirit some of them spoke in tongues and some of them prophesied?

In the OT there are examples where people were told that God's spirit would come upon them and when it did there would be a sign... they would prophesy.

There are 3 scriptures that show conversions where tongues were present and 2 of the 3 have possible connotations to prophesies while one of those 2 is definite.

The Bible is replete with examples of men prophesying as a result of being come upon or filled with the Holy Spirit.

[mfblume]

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

[Sam]

Exactly.

Theres is alot of stories, analogies, and experiences being shared from those who favor initial evidence doctrine, but little to no scriptural support.

This is a previous post of mine on another thread in this forum. I've tried to show where people received a Holy Ghost Baptism experience in the New Testament and what happened when they did.


--Acts 2:1-4 tongues are mentioned when about 1/4 of the early church (120 out of 500 members ref 1 Corinthians 15:6) were baptized in the Spirit. Some believe this is when those 120 got saved or born again. Others believe they had already been saved or born again as disciples/followers of Jesus and this was an empowering/filling/baptizing experience in the Holy Spirit.

--Acts 8:5-25 winter AD 31/32 Philip went to Samaria and preached Christ. People believed (verse 12) were saved (received the Word verse 14) and were baptized (verses 15-16) but they had not received/been baptized in the Spirit. Peter and John made the the 40 mile trip from Jerusalem and laid their hands on them and ministered the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) to them. Verse 17 says they were laying their hands on them and they were receiving (making room for or opening up to) the Holy Spirit. It does not say they spoke with tongues but I think it is implied for two reasons:
1. Simeon saw something happen when they were baptized in the Spirit. He had seen healings, exorcisms, salvations, and great joy but this was something else. It COULD HAVE BEEN speaking with tongues.
2. When Simon tried to buy the gift of ministering the HGB, Peter said "To hell with you and your money. You thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no part nor lot in this utterance" (verses 18-21). The KJV says "matter" there but the same word is translated "utterance" in 1 Corinthians 1:5 where it is speaking about the gifts of the Spirit in the Corinthian churc.

--Acts 8:26-40 records the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and his subsequent water baptism and the Spirit coming upon him. Again, no tongues is mentioned so we can't use this as an argument for or against tongues. You know the story. The eunuch was reading Isaiah chapter 53. Philip preached Christ from that scripture. They came to some water -probably the wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip first wanted to be sure he was saved so he said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch made a confession of faith (like Romans 10:9-13) so Philip stopped the chariot so the man could be baptized. Note, that confession of faith is not in some versions of the Bible. Verses 38-40 in some manuscripts read: "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell on the eunuch and the Angel of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea." Again, nothing proven about whether or not tongues happened.

--Acts 9:1-20 records the conversion of Saul. Traditional date for this is January 25, AD 32. Some of us believe that Saul was converted there on the road to Damascus when he realized Jesus was alive and he called Him Lord and asked what he should do. Three days later Ananias came to him on Straight street so that he could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. We read that Ananias laid his hands on him and we assume that is when and where he did receive his sight and receive the Holy Ghost Baptism. Again, no word about tongues although we know that 30 some years later Paul told the Corinthian church that he spoke with tongues more than all of them.

--Acts 10, AD 38, Cornelius and others heard the Word, believed, and the Holy Spirit fell upon them. It is recorded that they spoke with tongues and that is how Peter and the rest of them knew that the Gentiles had been Spirit filled. Later, Peter referred to this tongues speaking experience as a baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16-17). Actually, Peter said that these Gentiles had received the same experience he and others had received even though there was no mention of wind or tongues of fire in Acts 10, 11.

--Acts 19:1-7, October AD 53, a group of Baptist disciples who had not heard about the Holy Ghost found out that there was more for them than what they had received. Paul explained what Jesus did, then baptized them in water, and then laid his hands upon them and the Spirit came upon them It is recorded that they spoke with tongues and prophesied. We don't know if all 12 did both --spoke with tongues and prophesied-- or if some spoke with tongues and some prophesied. But speaking with tongues is mentioned.

Agreed, this is not a lot of witnesses but, based on this, some of us have come to the following conclusions:
1. There is a definite experience known as
the Holy Ghost Baptism
receiving the Holy Spirit
the Spirit coming upon
the Spirit falling upon
2. This experience is subsequent to conversion
3. Speaking with tongues accompanies the experience

Others reading the same accounts may not come to the same conclusions. We need to respect one another's beliefs on this. I know good Christian people who do not speak with tongues.

[jfrog]

Tongues, as diggingfortruth noted, was said by Paul to be for all. He would not will for all to speak in tongues if all could not. And we know the GIFT is not for all, since it distinctly reads God gives severally as He wills. Not only that, but 1 Cor 14 places tongues as for prayer, and no one would be exempt from that opportunity. So there is a form of tongues apart from the gift due to these facts. It is true that the bible does not explicitly associate tongues with salvation. But it is evidence of Spirit baptism, and nothing else is ever noted to be INITIAL evidence as tongues is. I think there is discrepancy between receiving the Spirit into one's life and the baptism of the Spirit. As I said, that cannot be proved otherwise, nor proved for my case either. But due to what IS written, I believe Spirit Baptism is one and the same as receiving the Spirit, and is for POWER, to be sure, and necessary for Kingdom life. So basically I will not say someone is hellbound who has not spoken in tongues, since the Bible did not say that plainly, but I preach for everyone to go for it and seek it and have it, bar none -- and strongly so. And I would not want to be caught without it. :D

My how you twist the scripture. Paul never said that tongues was for all anymore than he said prophesy was for all. The verse you reference is 1 Corinthians 14:5 where the context clearly reveals that he is speaking of the spiritual gift of tongues compared to the spiritual gift of prophecy. Both are gifts of the Spirit and are explicitly stated as not being for all. In fact, I've covered this single point with you more times than I can count and you still go back to it. What gives blume?

The fact is that Paul wished for all to speak with the gift of tongues even though all do not. The fact is that Paul wished for all to prophesy even though all do not.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Speaking wonderful works of God in another language is tongues, not prophesying.

It is more sensational to speak in tongues as the speaker does not know what he is speaking.

I know Apostolics who would disagree with you concerning the bolded.


Nevertheless, where I depart from my Apostolic upbringing is the conclusivity that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY MARKER that designates the begining of salvation.


There have been some great points brought up, but no one who believes the initial tongues doctrine can explain away the Phillipian jailer or the Ethiopian.


Please, MFBLUME address these two clear cases, when you have the time.

Furthermore, where are these "holes" that someone suggested was in the "one-stepper" doctrine?


I believe I can plug those "holes" using nothing but scripture in a way where the scriptures are presented clearly and without some unique interpretation that would require that one catch a "revelation" to understand.

After all, I am not sure in the likelihood of a fool catching any revelation, yet GOD gives hope even for the fool-- without understanding a "revelation."

[faithit166]

jfrog have you ever spoken in tongues am just wondering is all

[Jason B]

Could it be that there are those who do not recognize stories, analogies and
experiences, that are actually based on scriptural principals. But they don't
recognize points UNLESS they are posted in quotation marks, complete with
where it is found. Then there is the leading of the Spirit!

Jesus had his reasons for used parables, etc. The prophet Nathan used a
story when confronting David of his sin. David got the point! He repented!
He didn't try to argue his way out! David feared God, which is the beginning
of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Falla39


Sis Falla, like D4T said, your a precious lady, a saint of God, and I believe we will be together in heaven, along with many others who have trusted in Christs blood to atone for their sins, who may not agree with either of us.

What really gets me from the UPC crowd, is that as long as we just follow the rank and file like "that ants go marching one by one hurah, hurah" then were considered sensative spiritual saints of God.

But the moment we get on our faces in prayer and study the Word of God and come to a conclusion DIFFERENT than that of a denomination that hasn't even existed for a century, and a salvation doctrine that wasn't even prominent until the 1960's, THEN all of a sudden were not sensative to the Spirit, rebellious, backslid, charismatic, pagan, or whatever.

Why, because we seek a christianity that makes sense with the bible and with what we observe.

When I see people who truly repent of their sins and "seek" for the Holy Ghost and leave the alter with "nothing" and some do this for YEARS, some DIE "seeking", "almost" getting it,and the such like, all the while all of this flies in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in Luke 11, I ain't buy it.

IS GOD A LIAR??????????????

If He said that if our children ask a fish will we give them a serpant?....then how much MORE will your heavenly Father give the Holy Ghost to those who ASK Him.

In the initial evidence doctrine there are THOUSANDS, perhaps MILLIONS who have asked the heavenly Father for the Holy Ghost AND he has given them NOTHING. And don't say they didn't repent, not all did, but pleny have, and even submitted to Jesus name baptism.

The doctrine doesn't make biblical sense, and its about time somebody deals with it honestly, or the older generation can keep their heads in the sand and lose the yonger generation, the latter seems to be the course of action for the UPC.

[Jason B]

I would take that further and say that three steppers (although I don't care for that term) have more conclusive, visible evidence than a one-stepper with our eyes closed and hands tied behind our backs. Just sayin'..... :)

BORAT:ursofunny

[faithit166]

god knows the heart,and if they have yet to recieve it maybe god knows something we dont know

[Jason B]

Isn't prophesying also a biblically noted evidence of spirit baptism?

Isn't prophesying considered the "better gift" ?

[Sam]

Isn't prophesying considered the "better gift" ?

only if tongues is not interpreted.
T + I = P

It is my understanding that tongues plus interpretation are equal to prophecy
like 2 nickels are equal to a dime.

[jfrog]

jfrog have you ever spoken in tongues am just wondering is all

Does it matter?

[faithit166]

i was just wondering if you had ever experienced speaking in tongues,or are you just speaking things you know not

[Digging4Truth]

only if tongues is not interpreted.
T + I = P

It is my understanding that tongues plus interpretation are equal to prophecy
like 2 nickels are equal to a dime.

Prophecy is it's own gift.

There is the gift of tongues.
The gift of interpretation of tongues.
Then there is, separate from those, the gift of prophecy.

[Digging4Truth]

Just got back in from a youth rally in a town down the road. Lots of kids at the altar. One cried & pled for over an hour for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

No go tonight.

Maybe next time.

[Pressing-On]

BORAT:ursofunny

Right! LOL! The visible sign is a head of floppy, curly black hair. We are having unprecedented growth in the male membership. A first in Christianity! :toofunny

[faithit166]

amen, god knows

[shag]

amen, god knows



... the heart :thumbsup





So MANY people have fruits of humility and love, evident in their prayerful lives, and evident that God is leading them in a personal spirit led walk, and yet they go on to die, never have spoken in tongues. While there are also, many that pridefully sing songs of their truth and salvation, and grow no further that Acts 2:38 and "hear O Israel".

[faithit166]

thats right shag only he knows the heart

[jfrog]

i was just wondering if you had ever experienced speaking in tongues,or are you just speaking things you know not

Have you ever experienced receiving the Holy Ghost at repentance without speaking in tongues or do you just speak about things you know not?

[Sam]

Prophecy is it's own gift.

There is the gift of tongues.
The gift of interpretation of tongues.
Then there is, separate from those, the gift of prophecy.

yes,
I was trying to say that tongues plus interpretation is equal in importance to prophecy
that's why I used the analogy of two nickels being equal to a dime

[Sam]

Have you ever experienced receiving the Holy Ghost at repentance without speaking in tongues or do you just speak about things you know not?

The people to whom the Epistle of Ephesians was written are called "saints" in Eph 1:1.
And Paul identifies with them as being fellow believers by using the term "us" several times as in saying that God has chosen us in Him... and saying that God predestined us... Eph 1:4-5)
Then Ephesians 1:13 says that the Holy Spirit had indwelt them from the time they believed:
And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.

But later in chapter 5 verse 18 he encourages them to be filled with the Spirit. Others have stated that the words mean to be ongoingly filled with the Spirit, or be being filled with the Spirit, or keep getting filled with the Spirit.

There is a difference between the Spirit coming in to dwell at the birth of the Spirit and subsequent experiences of being filled with the Spirit or the Spirit coming upon or the Spirit falling upon or receiving (making room for) the Holy Spirit.

In the first century church over 500 believers saw Jesus after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6). Later, as He ascended, Jesus told His disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. He called this empowering a baptism in the Spirit and also called the experience the Holy Spirit coming upon you (Acts 1:4-8). Ten days when the Spirit came upon them or when they were baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday, the experience is also called being filled with the Spirit in Acts 2:4. When Peter described the experience he called it the Spirit being poured out, being shed forth, and called it the promise of the Father (Acts 2:17, 33, 39).

For many years, Apostolics, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and other Christians have seen the birth of the Spirit, or salvation by the Spirit, or Jesus coming into the heart as the Holy Spirit to be a separate experience from being filled with the Spirit, or receiving (making room for) the Holy Spirit, or being baptized in the Spirit, or being empowered by the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit coming upon or falling on an individual.

[Brett Prince]

DAII, Diggin, and Sam:

Just please answer this question:

What does Oneness Pentecostalism have to offer Christendom in terms of doctrine or experience, in your view, that is of any value--other than a more enlightened view of the Godhead, and a more biblical formula for baptism?

(I did not say that your view held any of these as salvational--I am simply under the impression that you do believe in the Oneness of God and that the name of Jesus is the proper name to be used in baptism.)

Please explain.

[Jason B]

DAII, Diggin, and Sam:

Just please answer this question:

What does Oneness Pentecostalism have to offer Christendom in terms of doctrine or experience, in your view, that is of any value--other than a more enlightened view of the Godhead, and a more biblical formula for baptism?

(I did not say that your view held any of these as salvational--I am simply under the impression that you do believe in the Oneness of God and that the name of Jesus is the proper name to be used in baptism.)

Please explain.

You didn't address me, but I'll answer.

Let me start with the bad first, then I'll mention whats good.
Bad
1)The initial evidence doctrine does violence to the biblical model of slavation.

2)oneness pentecostalism is filled with legalistic tendencies, and outright phraiseeical legalism. This produce weak christians,not strong ones.

3)because of 1 &2 there is a tendency to "worship" God in a carnal, if not heathen manner, in which self control is all but absent.

Good
In short, take those things away and oneness pentecostal is IMO the closest form of modern Christianity to primitive Christianty.

Oneness pentecostalism encourages personal prayer life, Bible study, sacrifice, holiness of life and character above seemingly all of the other denominations of Christianity.

However, the initial evidence doctrine, the legalism, and the uncontrollable shockamoo/worship will cripple the movement in its current existence.

**please note I am not against involved worship, but I'm against such things as have been noted on here called worship-research "worship injuries" thread.

[faithit166]

Have you ever experienced receiving the Holy Ghost at repentance without speaking in tongues or do you just speak about things you know not?

when god lead me to a pentecostal alter and i repented from the bottom of my feet to the top of my head was like a rushing mighty wind going thru me my tears were gone my sadness and my pain i had never felt this before i felt like i was on cloud nine i was filled with the holy ghost that same night tho i got baptized in jesus name when i came up out of the water i started praising god and then began speaking in another language beings i new nothing about all this i had to ask later what it all was,now that i have answered you wont you so kindly answer me?

[jfrog]

when god lead me to a pentecostal alter and i repented from the bottom of my feet to the top of my head was like a rushing mighty wind going thru me my tears were gone my sadness and my pain i had never felt this before i felt like i was on cloud nine i was filled with the holy ghost that same night tho i got baptized in jesus name when i came up out of the water i started praising god and then began speaking in another language beings i new nothing about all this i had to ask later what it all was,now that i have answered you wont you so kindly answer me?

I will not tell you if I have spoken in tongues or not. You asked the question only to try and beef up your argument. Such emotional appeals don't belong in a doctrinal discussion.

[faithit166]

you dont have to tell me jfrog from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,i dont need to say anything to beef up an arguement gods word speaks for itself god bless you anyways,but just remember this if you had not experienced tongues you cant really speak about it can you?have you ever thought that maybe the lord has got a little something more for you

[jfrog]

you dont have to tell me jfrog from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,i dont need to say anything to beef up an arguement gods word speaks for itself god bless you anyways,but just remember this if you had not experienced tongues you cant really speak about it can you?

That is one of the biggest lies of pentecostalism.

[faithit166]

well god knows amen,i want everything god has for me,lacking nothing dont you want everything the lord may have for you

[jfrog]

well god knows amen,i want everything god has for me,lacking nothing dont you want everything the lord may have for you

Who doesn't?

[faithit166]

i would love to hear your personnel testimony if you would care to share?

[jfrog]

i would love to hear your personnel testimony if you would care to share?

I don't want to at this time.

[faithit166]

okay maybe some other time blessings to you in jesus name

[Sam]

...if you had not experienced tongues you cant really speak about it can you?...

I disagree with that.

People can know about things without experiencing them.

People can know about poison without being poisoned.
People can know about being a mechanic and fixing a car without being a car.
People can know about death without dying.
People can know about the dangers of drug or alcohol abuse without being alcoholics or drug addicts.
etc.

[faithit166]

not like they would had they experienced it for themselves

[Sam]

DAII, Diggin, and Sam:

Just please answer this question:

What does Oneness Pentecostalism have to offer Christendom in terms of doctrine or experience, in your view, that is of any value--other than a more enlightened view of the Godhead, and a more biblical formula for baptism?

(I did not say that your view held any of these as salvational--I am simply under the impression that you do believe in the Oneness of God and that the name of Jesus is the proper name to be used in baptism.)

Please explain.

In my opinion, oneness pentecostalism, is just a small part of the Body of Christ.
We differ from other groups within Christianity in a couple different ways depending on the oneness organization, local oneness church, or individual preacher.

The largest and most visible group within oneness pentecostalism is the UPC. The UPC is made up of many different ministers and churches. Within the organization you have many fine Christians who genuinely care for people and you have some real abusers and controllers and some real charlatans. I would not say the UPC as an organization is a cult but it has several cultic characteristics and some of the local churches are just cults.

As far as the ministers and people within oneness pentecost we run the gamut of cultists who preach a narrow message incorporating certain doctrines, practices, and rules all the way to others who are more open and accepting of those who do not agree with them on every matter and who accept others as saved and going to heaven even if they are not part of us.

I believe that water baptism should only be for a person who is already saved; that it should be by immersion if practically possible; and the name of Jesus should be a part of it. I believe that the condition of the heart of the person being baptized is far more important than the amount of water and the words spoken during the ritual.

As far as "the godhead" I believe there is one God whom we know as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and His highest name is Jesus. Beyond that I think it is silly to think that we humans can fully contain, understand, and explain God in a neat theological package.

So, in my opinion, there is really no reason for "oneness pentecost" to be an exclusive group separated from other Christians. I am ordained in a small apostolic pentecostal group which is one of the several divisions of The Church of Jesus Christ which was chartered in 1927. I maintain my license with them because they provide me legal status as a minister in the state of Ohio and I like the name. I'm also ordained (just recently) in my local church which is trinitarian.

[faithit166]

so you are kinda both right oneness and trinity,

[Sam]

so you are kinda both right oneness and trinity,

I don't like either label --oneness or trinity.
I think they can be divisive and neither term is in our King James Bible.

How do I understand the "godhead"? Well, I don't claim to understand it, but
I believe that God is an eternal, invisible spirit who fills all time and space, that He personally visited planet earth in the person of His Son whom He offered as a sacrifice for our sins, and that He is active today within, upon, and among humanity as the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ or Jesus in my heart. I believe that He is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and that His highest name is Jesus.
I don't care if you call that oneness, Jesus Only, triunity or trinity because I don't try to label it.

[faithit166]

thanks for your reply

[Falla39]

How can we tell others about places we have not been!
How can we relate to experiences we have not had.

Falla39

[faithit166]

amen falla exactly

[jfrog]

How can we tell others about places we have not been!
How can we relate to experiences we have not had.

Falla30

Does the same apply to heaven and hell?

[Digging4Truth]

DAII, Diggin, and Sam:

Just please answer this question:

What does Oneness Pentecostalism have to offer Christendom in terms of doctrine or experience, in your view, that is of any value--other than a more enlightened view of the Godhead, and a more biblical formula for baptism?

(I did not say that your view held any of these as salvational--I am simply under the impression that you do believe in the Oneness of God and that the name of Jesus is the proper name to be used in baptism.)

Please explain.

I had not seen this post until I noticed Sam's reply. I don't have time to answer right now but I am quoting it here to keep it closer to the end of the thread with hopes I won't forget to address this.

Thanks for the question...

[mfblume]

My how you twist the scripture.

You can sit there and type those words after saying the people whom Peter said crucified the Lord in Acts 2 never crucified the Lord? :lol

Paul never said that tongues was for all anymore than he said prophesy was for all. The verse you reference is 1 Corinthians 14:5 where the context clearly reveals that he is speaking of the spiritual gift of tongues compared to the spiritual gift of prophecy. Both are gifts of the Spirit and are explicitly stated as not being for all. In fact, I've covered this single point with you more times than I can count and you still go back to it. What gives blume?

The fact is that Paul wished for all to speak with the gift of tongues even though all do not. The fact is that Paul wished for all to prophesy even though all do not.

Paul did not hope for pipedreams that could not be fulfilled.

[Pressing-On]

Paul did not hope for pipedreams that could not be fulfilled.

Absolutely!!! :thumbsup

[coadie]

Paul did not hope for pipedreams that could not be fulfilled.
Acts 19
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7And all the men were about twelve.

8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


Nothing changed. Those that didn't recieve the baptisms spake evil.

[mfblume]

I know Apostolics who would disagree with you concerning the bolded.


Nevertheless, where I depart from my Apostolic upbringing is the conclusivity that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY MARKER that designates the begining of salvation.


There have been some great points brought up, but no one who believes the initial tongues doctrine can explain away the Phillipian jailer or the Ethiopian.


Please, MFBLUME address these two clear cases, when you have the time.

Furthermore, where are these "holes" that someone suggested was in the "one-stepper" doctrine?

The overall point is that Acts certainly did not record the details of every single conversion that occurred at the time, including the little boy at the corner of Straight Street with the puppy dog that specifically was given to him from his aunt on the other side of town. lol

Acts shows the major events tat occurred by homing in on the fulfillment of how Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria and the uttermost peoples would be reached. Acts 2. Acts 8 and Acts 10. Then we even get those from other faiths, or should I say incomplete faiths. Acts 19.
In each of these cases it is evident they spoke with tongues.

Individual conversions like the jailer and the Ethiopian were for other purposes showing other details we are required to know about conversion. The baptism of the Ethiopian shows, among other things, who should and who should not be baptized (" If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"), and also shows that baptism is not a show or statement to a church, for no congregation was there to witness it. The jailer's case showed how important it was to experience baptism the same hour as belief occurred, among other things.

The point is that the Acts explains facts about new birth that we need to understand through living examples. It shows three major events covering all ethnic backgrounds with the people speaking in tongues.

I leave those whom God wishes to not bring into glory up to God. So I am not judging those who have never spoken in tongues. I am just saying what the bible said.