Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Isn't this statement clear enough?

[geekette]

Isn't this statement clear enough?

Well, I heard it as "repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Which I believe is the three-stepper position?

[Michael The Disciple]

Tongues is not the baptism. The ANOINTING is the baptism. Tongues FOLLOW the anointing.

[mfblume]

Isn't this statement clear enough?

Amen and amen. This is the very accusation people have against whom they call "three steppers" and it is a strawman. No matter how anyone slices it, you cannot accuse something that is claimed to be initial evidence of what is required for salvation to be thing required for salvation based upon that claim. --no matter who among the three step crowd mistakenly treats it as though it were.

[Jack Shephard]

Tongues is not the baptism. The ANOINTING is the baptism. Tongues FOLLOW the anointing.

Not in EVERY case, but most, IMO.

[MawMaw]

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.

[deadeye]

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.

Isn't that statement clear enough?

[StillStanding]

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Which carries more weight? Charity or speaking in tongues?

Can one be saved without charity, or speaking in tongues or either?

Speaking in tongues is not the ultimate test of salvation!

[deadeye]

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Which carries more weight? Charity or speaking in tongues?

Can one be saved without charity, or speaking in tongues or either?

Speaking in tongues is not the ultimate test of salvation!

Good points

[BroGary]

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.

Amen, and even though (as the original post implied) speaking in tongues is not what saves you, it is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is part of what is required for salvation. (along with repentence and baptism in Jesus name).

[deadeye]

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Which carries more weight? Charity or speaking in tongues?

Can one be saved without charity, or speaking in tongues or either?

Speaking in tongues is not the ultimate test of salvation!


Actually the New Birth is the ultimate test of salvation...tongues however happens to be a very important part of the New Birth.

[Jason B]

Actually the New Birth is the ultimate test of salvation...tongues however happens to be a very important part of the New Birth.

so then all who have never spoken in tongues in the history of the church are lost?

[Sam]

so then all who have never spoken in tongues in the history of the church are lost?

yes,

if

speaking with tongues is the initial physical evidence of the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) and nobody has ever received the HGB unless they have spoken with tongues

and

the Holy Ghost Baptism is the birth of the Spirit.

It seems to me that would have to be a fair assessment of that doctrine.

Some of us, however, believe that there is a birth of the Spirit at repentance and the HGB is a separate experience and those who have been born of the Spirit may or may not later receive the HGB.

[Hoovie]

so then all who have never spoken in tongues in the history of the church are lost?

This would be not just silly, but sad - knowing only a small minority of Christian heroes I honor and respect has practiced the speaking in tongues phenomenon.

[geekette]

This would be not just silly, but sad - knowing only a small minority of Christian heroes I honor and respect has practiced the speaking in tongues phenomenon.

But there were and are people who believe it, and then would go through contortions trying to prove that their devout grandmother had spoken in tongues even though she was a staunch Methodist until the day she died (and, truth be told, would never have done anything so undignified).

Of course, that was nothing compared to the hoops people would jump through to prove that their Methodist granny was saved even though she hadn't been baptized in Jesus' Name.

[BroGary]

But there were and are people who believe it, and then would go through contortions trying to prove that their devout grandmother had spoken in tongues even though she was a staunch Methodist until the day she died (and, truth be told, would never have done anything so undignified).

Of course, that was nothing compared to the hoops people would jump through to prove that their Methodist granny was saved even though she hadn't been baptized in Jesus' Name.

I understand what you are saying, and while we of course want as many people to be saved as possible, we can't just ignore doctrine as unimportant and simply say that just being sincere is enough reguardless of how you believe.

That is why it is so important to stand firm for what the Bible says is a must to be born again and share that truth with others.

[pelathais]

Amen and amen. This is the very accusation people have against whom they call "three steppers" and it is a strawman. No matter how anyone slices it, you cannot accuse something that is claimed to be initial evidence of what is required for salvation to be thing required for salvation based upon that claim. --no matter who among the three step crowd mistakenly treats it as though it were.

:blink

[KWSS1976]

I am just still tring to figure out why he said this was a "gift" and 12 peps pray over someone and they still do not get the "gift"...Thats not how it happened in the bible..everytime someone had there hands laid on them in Acts it happened..So what has changed between then and now...?????

[Pressing-On]

:blink

LOL! Maybe he will come back and elaborate a little on that last comment.

[Digging4Truth]

No mention of tongues here...

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

No mention of tongues here...

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

No mention of tongues here...

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I think we would be more Biblically sound to recognize that tongues can be a sign. But to require as part of our doctrine that tongues IS, absolutely, THE initial evidence cannot be unequivocally backed up with scripture.

[Digging4Truth]

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.

Of course... because when we view tongues as the initial evidence then no one is considered to have received the Holy Ghost unless they have spoken in tongues. So everyone who received the Holy Ghost did speak in tongues because those who have not spoken in tongues are deemed to have not yet received the Holy Ghost.

The paradigm creates it's own success rate due to the ever successful method of circular reasoning.

[Pressing-On]

Of course... because when we view tongues as the initial evidence then no one is considered to have received the Holy Ghost unless they have spoken in tongues. So everyone who received the Holy Ghost did speak in tongues because those who have not spoken in tongues are deemed to have not yet received the Holy Ghost.

The paradigm creates it's own success rate due to the ever successful method of circular reasoning.

Gosh, Digging,
There is more evidence that tongues was the initial evidence in the Book of Acts than not being the evidence. You know the verses. :thumbsup

[DAII]

No mention of tongues here...



No mention of tongues here...



No mention of tongues here...



I think we would be more Biblically sound to recognize that tongues can be a sign. But to require as part of our doctrine that tongues IS, absolutely, THE initial evidence cannot be unequivocally backed up with scripture.

Yep.

The principle of first mention as some would like to point out to prove this century old man made doctrine .... is not in Acts 2 .... but rather referenced by the preacher at Pentecost when he points to Joel's prophecy.

The prophecy states that they will prophesy (NOT SPEAK IN TONGUES)... and that the Lord would show his wonders on the heavens and earth ....

Keeping in mind that biblically prophesying is not just foretelling future events but also declaring, teaching, et al.

Those who were there marveled .... marveled mostly because they heard those engaged in xenolalia were sharing/prophesying/declaring or "speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11)

Had it been unintelligible ... or "lalalalalalala" ... they would not have been able to make the connection Peter made early in his message on the day of Pentecost in which he reminds them of the promise ....

And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the Lord has said,
among the survivors
whom the Lord calls. Joel 2:20-21, Acts 2: 19,20

The vehicle ... tongues has been confused with what the message OR CONTENT is ...

THE WORKS OF THE LORD ... who is mighty to save FOR THOSE WHO CALL UPON HIS NAME!

That tongues is a prophetic manifestation of Spirit infilling cannot be denied ....

that it is the necessary and universal initial evidentiary sign of the New Birth ... or being born from above ... is not supported didactically or explicitly in Scripture ... at all.

I believe that Acts 10 and 19 support this view ... as we find PURPOSEFUL tongues accompanied with "magnifying the Lord and prophesying" in both instances.

Acts 10: 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Acts 19: 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

[Digging4Truth]

Gosh, Digging,
There is more evidence that tongues was the initial evidence in the Book of Acts than not being the evidence. You know the verses. :thumbsup

There are verses where tongues was evidence that people had received the Holy Ghost. 3 of them. Each of them appear to be in keeping with the scripture that says...

1Cr 14:22 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.

1. On the day of Pentecost when the initial outpouring happened.
2. When Cornelius (the first Gentile) received the Holy Ghost.
3. When the 12 at Ephesus received the Holy Ghost. They had already heard and believed John's gospel they had heard but had, apparently, not been told about the Holy Ghost or about being baptized in Jesus name. Although there is no evidence that they all spoke with tongues. There were 12 there and the Word says they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Did all 12 speak with tongues and then all 12 prophesy? We can't know. But it would seem most likely that some spoke with tongues and some prophesied.

And there are an equal number of biblical references that speak of the Holy Ghost being received with no mention of tongues.

So we have at least a 50/50 split on mentions of tongues and no mention of tongues and yet so many hold hard and fast that tongues is THE evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

[Digging4Truth]

Also... one other thing..

1Cr 14:22 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.

Tongues is viewed today as a sign for the believer. Your average pentecostal believer will not accept that you have received the Holy Ghost until they see the sign.

[DAII]

2 conversions out of 20 or 21 in Acts in which the link between tongues and prophesying are implied or explicitly stated .... does not a template make for all time to obtain salvation or to prove regeneration...

We must search the Scriptures to flesh out such a view ... and there is nothing to support it .... NOTHING .... simply ASSUMPTION AND FEELINGS.

This is not an apostolic doctrine, nor sound hermeneutic.

[Pressing-On]

And there are an equal number of biblical references that speak of the Holy Ghost being received with no mention of tongues.


Could you list them for me?

It seems that Jesus instructed the Disciples to tarry in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high". (Luke 24:49)

And suddenly, there came a sound from heaven.....

Acts 2:6 ..."and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

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.

What you see and hear, it is the promise of the Father - the Holy Ghost. :thumbsup

[Digging4Truth]

Could you list them for me?

It seems that Jesus instructed the Disciples to tarry in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high". (Luke 24:49)

And suddenly, there came a sound from heaven.....

Acts 2:6 ..."and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

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.

What you see and hear, it is the promise of the Father - the Holy Ghost. :thumbsup

On your post above... absolutely. They were to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and it came and the Jews from all over the world saw it and knew something different was happening because of the sign of tongues. This was a sign to those who did not believe.

And on the instances where there was no mention of tongues... I've already provided those in another post but I will copy/paste the post here for you.

No mention of tongues here...

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

No mention of tongues here...

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

No mention of tongues here...

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I think we would be more Biblically sound to recognize that tongues can be a sign. But to require as part of our doctrine that tongues IS, absolutely, THE initial evidence cannot be unequivocally backed up with scripture.

[Pressing-On]

On your post above... absolutely. They were to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and it came and the Jews from all over the world saw it and knew something different was happening because of the sign of tongues. This was a sign to those who did not believe.

And on the instances where there was no mention of tongues... I've already provided those in another post but I will copy/paste the post here for you.

I believe the precedent was set (Acts 2:47) and was not necessary to keep mentioning such a tremendous and promised phenomenon. Why would it be necessary after the upper room experience? It was happening. Today, there is so much doubt, it is easy to overlook something hiding in plain sight. :D

I also find it remarkable that those making the comments that the sign is not necessarily speaking in tongues - all DO speak in tongues. Don't you find that rather strange?

[Digging4Truth]

2 conversions out of 20 or 21 in Acts in which the link between tongues and prophesying are implied or explicitly stated .... does not a template make for all time to obtain salvation or to prove regeneration...

We must search the Scriptures to flesh out such a view ... and there is nothing to support it .... NOTHING .... simply ASSUMPTION AND FEELINGS.

This is not an apostolic doctrine, nor sound hermeneutic.

DA... I know this is asking a lot... and... "no... I don't have time" is a perfectly good answer.

But would you be able to provide the scriptures for the 21 conversions in Acts? I don't have a list of that many conversions and it would help to have all of those instances.

[Digging4Truth]

I believe the precedent was set (Acts 2:47) and was not necessary to keep mentioning such a tremendous and promised phenomenon. Why would it be necessary after the upper room experience? It was happening. Today, there is so much doubt, it is easy to overlook something hiding in plain sight. :D

I also find it remarkable that those making the comments that the sign is not necessarily speaking in tongues - all DO speak in tongues. Don't you find that rather strange?

What is Acts 2:47 a precendent for? All that says is that God added to the church daily.

[DAII]

What is Acts 2:47 a precendent for? All that says is that God added to the church daily.

The phenomenon is Salvation through Jesus Christ ... who gives the life quickening gift of the Holy Spirit ....

The rest is PO trying to validate her exclusive corner on Truth based on assumption.

PO ... search for Truth.

[DAII]

DA... I know this is asking a lot... and... "no... I don't have time" is a perfectly good answer.

But would you be able to provide the scriptures for the 21 conversions in Acts? I don't have a list of that many conversions and it would help to have all of those instances.

Thank God for Bernie Gillespie ....

Here is a great tool that shows a customized chart showing how lop-sided the difference is ... when weighed with the 3 stepper paradigm of salvation ... in comparison to the universal concept of faith/belief/repentance ....

I'd keep in mind that I do not consider the Apostles in Acts 2 to be a conversion ....

http://inchristalone.org/Conversions.htm (http://inchristalone.org/Conversions.htm)

The apostolic letters do not address the notion salvific tongues at all. It would seem paramount ... if it was so the case ... AND THE MESSAGE

No 6 HGs or 12 H20 status postings either.

[Digging4Truth]

Thank God for Bernie Gillespie ....

Here is a great tool that shows a customized chart showing how lop-sided the difference is ... when weighed with the 3 stepper paradigm of salvation ... an comparison to the universal concept of faith/belief/repentance ....

I'd keep in mind that I do not consider the Apostles in Acts 2 to be a conversion ....

http://inchristalone.org/Conversions.htm (http://inchristalone.org/Conversions.htm)

I figured that you did not count them as a conversion because you said 2 of 21 and there are 3 scriptures where tongues is mention in relation to someone receiving the Holy Ghost. It made the most sense that you were not considering the Apostles as a conversion.

Thanks for the link.

[Pressing-On]

The phenomenon is Salvation through Jesus Christ ... who gives the life quickening gift of the Holy Spirit ....

The rest is PO trying to validate her exclusive corner on Truth based on assumption.

PO ... search for Truth.
Do I have to follow you? Not happenin'. :nah :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

What is Acts 2:47 a precendent for? All that says is that God added to the church daily.

That what occurred at the beginning of Acts 2, was happening in verse 47. That is a precedent.

Hiding in plain sight.....

[DAII]

Only two conversions (Acts 10 and 19) ... in which we find tongues accompanying prophesying or magnifying the Lord (inferred and explicitly stated) as FIRST stated by God through the prophet Joel .... Let's preach the Word and not our fancies.

Those who call upon His name ... a Hebrew idiomatic expression for placing faith on the testator ... SHALL BE SAVED.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rjZMUSTyomU/TGAq6_gNTcI/AAAAAAAAAqo/6RawqjxoH7c/belieftongues.png

[Pressing-On]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rjZMUSTyomU/TGAq6_gNTcI/AAAAAAAAAqo/6RawqjxoH7c/belieftongues.png

And so they believed what Peter told them when they asked what all of this they were seeing and hearing meant?

Acts 2:47 "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

[Pressing-On]

I also find it remarkable that those making the comments that the sign is not necessarily speaking in tongues - all DO speak in tongues. Don't you find that rather strange?

And I ask again..........doesn't that seem rather strange?

[DAII]

And so they believed what Peter told them when they asked what all of this they were seeing and hearing meant?

Acts 2:47 "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

It's too bad your definition for belief is not the biblical definition for believing ...

Again, those added the 3,000 or anyone added .... cannot be added to your count of "everyone in Acts spoke in tongues".

Find, preach, teach TRUTH. Jesus Christ.

[DAII]

And I ask again..........doesn't that seem rather strange?

Self-fulfilling "prophecy" ... yet guys like DeltaGuitar ... was around OPs all his life and for decades did not ... AS A SAVED BELIEVER

but I love your zeal and passion and feelings and anecdotes .... despite the lack of Scripture.

[BroGary]

But there were and are people who believe it, and then would go through contortions trying to prove that their devout grandmother had spoken in tongues even though she was a staunch Methodist until the day she died (and, truth be told, would never have done anything so undignified).

Of course, that was nothing compared to the hoops people would jump through to prove that their Methodist granny was saved even though she hadn't been baptized in Jesus' Name.

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

[DAII]

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

God chose Jesus Christ to save me ... He is the initial evidence ... or the Word/Testimony .... that God loves me and saved me ... I place my trust and reliance wholly on Him for my salvation and new birth.

[Pressing-On]

It's too bad your definition for belief is not the biblical definition for believing ...

Again, those added the 3,000 or anyone added .... cannot be added to your count of "everyone in Acts spoke in tongues".

Find, preach, teach TRUTH. Jesus Christ.

It's too bad you don't want to see what was all entailed in "believe". Not only believing on His name (Matthew 12:21), who He was (John 5:43), what was prophesied of Him (Isaiah 9:6), but also the promise of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) - which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:33)

[Pressing-On]

I know there are those who disagree that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and they have the free will to believe as they want, but for those who do believe it is the initial evidence you probally already know at least some of this, but here is an online tract that gives some very good reasons WHY God chose tongues as the initial evidence -

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

I believe that like the Tower of Babel, where God dispersed the people and chose one nation for His purpose, He used tongues to bring us all together again.

[DAII]

It's too bad you don't want to see what was all entailed in "believe". Not only believing on His name (Matthew 12:21), who He was (John 5:43), what was prophesied of Him (Isaiah 9:6), but also the promise of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) - which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:33)

If it's all entailed then it would be core and plainly evident in the conversions and didactic teachings of the apostles and those they encountered...

PO this view is not apostolic ... nor can you show it biblically ... nor explicitly ... other than weaving proof texts based on your pre-conceived paradigm and experiential notions.

The preponderance of biblical evidence is most definitely not on your side.

[Pressing-On]

If it's all entailed then it would be core and plainly evident in the conversions and didactic teachings of the apostles ... PO this view is not apostolic ... nor can you show it biblically ... nor explicitly ... other than weaving proof texts based on your pre-conceived paradigm.

The precedent is set in Acts 2. No theologian will dispute this is the beginning of the NT church. What is going on in that chapter? That is Apostolic. Am I more Apostolic than you, Danny? :heeheehee

[DAII]

The precedent is set in Acts 2. No theologian will dispute this is the beginning of the NT church. What is going on in that chapter? That is Apostolic. Am I more Apostolic than you, Danny? :heeheehee
Once again ... not a shred of explicit evidence to prove necessary for salvation. You're as Catholic and sacramental as you've always been.

http://images.zaazu.com/img/glee-puck-glee-club-puck-smiley-emoticon-000842-medium.gif

[Pressing-On]

Once again ... not a shred of explicit evidence. You're as Catholic and sacramental as you've always been.

http://images.zaazu.com/img/glee-puck-glee-club-puck-smiley-emoticon-000842-medium.gif

That was funny, Danny! :toofunny That's why I can't help but like you regardless of your deviance. :thumbsup

BTW, you are the one that has a more recent picture of lighting prayer candles in a Cathedral. Just sayin'.... I am more Apostolic than you! :heeheehee

[faithit166]

On your post above... absolutely. They were to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and it came and the Jews from all over the world saw it and knew something different was happening because of the sign of tongues. This was a sign to those who did not believe.

And on the instances where there was no mention of tongues... I've already provided those in another post but I will copy/paste the post here for you.

acts 2;4 states and they were all filled with the holy ghost and began to speak with other tongues,if you do not believe paul spoke in tongues when he recieved the holy ghost when do you think he began speaking in tongues for he stated in 1 corinthians 14;18 i thank my god i speak in tongues more than you all,when peter and john went to samaria and laid hands on them and god filled them with the holy ghost,how do you think peter and john knew they had recieved it,better yet how did phillip know they had not recieved it?how do peter and john know they recieved the holy ghost it could have not been their spiritual fruit,spiritual fruit is borne over time the apostles did not stand there waiting and guessing who had recieved and who had not they new instantly,there had to be a sign of some sort for the sign had to be so dramatic that simon the sorcerer when he saw that this sign was given thru the laying on of the apostles hand he tried to buy it.we know the only sign given on the day of pentecost was that of speaking in tongues!

[Falla39]

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.

Lacey,
I am 70, and all my life I have been taught that Jesus gave to Peter the
keys to the kingdom. After instructing the apostles/disciples to go to
Jerusalem and tarry/wait until they be endued with power from on high.
And while they tarried/waited, suddenly the Holy Ghost was poured down
upon those 120 waiting, as Jesus had instructed. Peter preached the first
Pentecostal message. Peter said to 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. For the Promise is unto you (Jewish
believers, and to your children (Jewish belivers children) and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. He's still calling
today and we who were afar off have been brought nigh.

I not only was taught the above things, but found it to be Bibical!:thumbsup

This is all I have ever heard in the two churches I have attended in my
lifetime. We moved from the first church we attended, when I was 11 yrs.
old. We have lived in the present location for almost 60 yrs. My late parents
founded the church we have attended for almost 52 yrs. I am so thankful for
the simple message of Pentecost I have heard and believed. Paul told young
Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child though hast known the holy scriptures which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus".

Could it be that those who were taught that you didn't have to do anything
but repent, believed that that was all they had to do. Why would you obey
anything else, if those who were supposed to be your teachers told you that
was all you had to do. I personally know a man who is older than I, who went
to our church and is presently attending a UPC some distance from here. They
retired and moved. But his Baptist mother so instilled in him that he was saved
and didn't need to speak with tongues, that he didn't pursue the Holy Ghost.
His wife came from a trinitarian background, heard the apostolic message of
Acts 2:38 many years ago, believed and obeyed it!That man so believed his
mother that he didn't feel he needed to do anything else. After all Momma said
he was saved!

YOU DON"T PURSUE tongues, you SEEK THE HOLY GHOST. If you want to
enter into the Kingdom of God, you MUST received the HOLY GHOST to do so.
For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and
joy, in the HOLY GHOST!

My late paternal grandmother searched the scriptures daily and found that
someone had deceived her. The minister she had listened to, and her mother
had been a charter member for 48 yrs in that church, and she for 21 yrs. She
heard another minister preach another message. She got mad and was going
to prove him wrong UNTIL, she searched it out and found it was true. She left
Father and Mother's religion, forsook that church and obeyed the apostolic
plan of salvation. She found it was true and promptly obeyed. Her 15 yr old
son, my late father followed her in obeying this new message they had heard.
Grandma said she was forsaken at first, by her family members. They thought
she had lost her mind. Her mother sought God in secret prayer and He reveal-
ed Himself to her. She and her husband obeyed and followed. Many other of
her family. Grandma said she felt as if a great gulf seperated her from her
parents, etc. She said they could come to her, but she couldn't and wouldn't
go back to them.

I thank GOD for that decision made by my late paternal grandmother. In a
way, she made a decision which has blessed many generations of her family.
and mine. Of course we did have to decide individually for ourselves when we
first believed!

Anything less than FULL TRUTH is error!

If someone, in FAITH, TRULY repents, is baptized in Jesus Name, they will
receive the Holy Ghost and it will be evidenced by the Spirit giving the utter-
ance. The utterance (sound, evidence) that they have indeed received the
Spirit. It is the Promise of the Father!

Let God be true and every man a liar. If there is a problem, it is with man,
Not GOD!

Lacey, like you, I have never seen anyone that received the Holy Ghost that
did not speak in tongues, when the Spirit came. There was JOY, from the
recipiant to the attendants. Those attending the New Birth!:bliss
The signs follow the believer, not the other way around.

Falla39

[Digging4Truth]

Lacey, like you, I have never seen anyone that received the Holy Ghost that
did not speak in tongues, when the Spirit came. There was JOY, from the
recipiant to the attendants. Those attending the New Birth!:bliss
The signs follow the believer, not the other way around.

Falla39

If you don't mind I would like to use this portion of your post to say something...

I had mentioned before that if our paradigm is that one has not received the Holy Ghost until they have spoken in tongues then this will be what we recall because each person who did not speak in tongues is deemed to have not received the Holy Ghost. It is a self fulfilling teaching.

But my thought is this. I have seen people go to the altar... mean people... hateful people... terribly sinful people.

I have seen them "receive a blessing" at the altar crying and repenting before God.
I have seen people get up from that altar changed.
I have seen an attitude in them and on their faces I had never seen before.
I have seen a grumpy and hateful person all of a sudden become a happy and loving person.
I have seen a person who smoked and drank and could never give it up quit that night.

But they didn't speak in tongues.

And people congratulated them on their "blessing" and told them... you keep praying and God will fill you with the Holy Ghost. They were dismayed at this because they thought they DID receive the Holy Ghost.

Oh no... they are told. You received a blessing but when you receive the Holy Ghost you will speak in tongues and it will be so much better than what you received tonight.

I have seen them try to receive this Holy Ghost and finally quit from such deep discouragement that they couldn't receive the Holy Ghost and when they attended for the last time the record still stood... nobody ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I saw lots of signs... some even biblically explicit.

I saw love one to another.
I saw a miraculous ability to quit things that had held them captive for years.
I saw a change in spirit, attitude and nature.
I saw someone who was not the same as they used to be.
I saw someone who had received power after that this "blessing" had come upon them.

But since no one saw tongues doubt was planted in their heart and it destroyed them.

But... at the end of the day... it can still be said by those who are so fond of saying it... In all my years of living for God no one has ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I think we really need to take another look at this doctrine.

[MawMaw]

Lacey,
I am 70, and all my life I have been taught that Jesus gave to Peter the
keys to the kingdom. After instructing the apostles/disciples to go to
Jerusalem and tarry/wait until they be endued with power from on high.
And while they tarried/waited, suddenly the Holy Ghost was poured down
upon those 120 waiting, as Jesus had instructed. Peter preached the first
Pentecostal message. Peter said to 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. For the Promise is unto you (Jewish
believers, and to your children (Jewish belivers children) and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. He's still calling
today and we who were afar off have been brought nigh.

I not only was taught the above things, but found it to be Bibical!:thumbsup

This is all I have ever heard in the two churches I have attended in my
lifetime. We moved from the first church we attended, when I was 11 yrs.
old. We have lived in the present location for almost 60 yrs. My late parents
founded the church we have attended for almost 52 yrs. I am so thankful for
the simple message of Pentecost I have heard and believed. Paul told young
Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child though hast known the holy scriptures which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus".

Could it be that those who were taught that you didn't have to do anything
but repent, believed that that was all they had to do. Why would you obey
anything else, if those who were supposed to be your teachers told you that
was all you had to do. I personally know a man who is older than I, who went
to our church and is presently attending a UPC some distance from here. They
retired and moved. But his Baptist mother so instilled in him that he was saved
and didn't need to speak with tongues, that he didn't pursue the Holy Ghost.
His wife came from a trinitarian background, heard the apostolic message of
Acts 2:38 many years ago, believed and obeyed it!That man so believed his
mother that he didn't feel he needed to do anything else. After all Momma said
he was saved!

YOU DON"T PURSUE tongues, you SEEK THE HOLY GHOST. If you want to
enter into the Kingdom of God, you MUST received the HOLY GHOST to do so.
For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and
joy, in the HOLY GHOST!

My late paternal grandmother searched the scriptures daily and found that
someone had deceived her. The minister she had listened to, and her mother
had been a charter member for 48 yrs in that church, and she for 21 yrs. She
heard another minister preach another message. She got mad and was going
to prove him wrong UNTIL, she searched it out and found it was true. She left
Father and Mother's religion, forsook that church and obeyed the apostolic
plan of salvation. She found it was true and promptly obeyed. Her 15 yr old
son, my late father followed her in obeying this new message they had heard.
Grandma said she was forsaken at first, by her family members. They thought
she had lost her mind. Her mother sought God in secret prayer and He reveal-
ed Himself to her. She and her husband obeyed and followed. Many other of
her family. Grandma said she felt as if a great gulf seperated her from her
parents, etc. She said they could come to her, but she couldn't and wouldn't
go back to them.

I thank GOD for that decision made by my late paternal grandmother. In a
way, she made a decision which has blessed many generations of her family.
and mine. Of course we did have to decide individually for ourselves when we
first believed!

Anything less than FULL TRUTH is error!

If someone, in FAITH, TRULY repents, is baptized in Jesus Name, they will
receive the Holy Ghost and it will be evidenced by the Spirit giving the utter-
ance. The utterance (sound, evidence) that they have indeed received the
Spirit. It is the Promise of the Father!

Let God be true and every man a liar. If there is a problem, it is with man,
Not GOD!

Lacey, like you, I have never seen anyone that received the Holy Ghost that
did not speak in tongues, when the Spirit came. There was JOY, from the
recipiant to the attendants. Those attending the New Birth!:bliss
The signs follow the believer, not the other way around.

Falla39

Wow! Awesome post Sis Falla!! So so very true! Thanks!! :thumbsup

[BroGary]

Lacey,
I am 70, and all my life I have been taught that Jesus gave to Peter the
keys to the kingdom. After instructing the apostles/disciples to go to
Jerusalem and tarry/wait until they be endued with power from on high.
And while they tarried/waited, suddenly the Holy Ghost was poured down
upon those 120 waiting, as Jesus had instructed. Peter preached the first
Pentecostal message. Peter said to 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. For the Promise is unto you (Jewish
believers, and to your children (Jewish belivers children) and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. He's still calling
today and we who were afar off have been brought nigh.

I not only was taught the above things, but found it to be Bibical!:thumbsup

This is all I have ever heard in the two churches I have attended in my
lifetime. We moved from the first church we attended, when I was 11 yrs.
old. We have lived in the present location for almost 60 yrs. My late parents
founded the church we have attended for almost 52 yrs. I am so thankful for
the simple message of Pentecost I have heard and believed. Paul told young
Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child though hast known the holy scriptures which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus".

Could it be that those who were taught that you didn't have to do anything
but repent, believed that that was all they had to do. Why would you obey
anything else, if those who were supposed to be your teachers told you that
was all you had to do. I personally know a man who is older than I, who went
to our church and is presently attending a UPC some distance from here. They
retired and moved. But his Baptist mother so instilled in him that he was saved
and didn't need to speak with tongues, that he didn't pursue the Holy Ghost.
His wife came from a trinitarian background, heard the apostolic message of
Acts 2:38 many years ago, believed and obeyed it!That man so believed his
mother that he didn't feel he needed to do anything else. After all Momma said
he was saved!

YOU DON"T PURSUE tongues, you SEEK THE HOLY GHOST. If you want to
enter into the Kingdom of God, you MUST received the HOLY GHOST to do so.
For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and
joy, in the HOLY GHOST!

My late paternal grandmother searched the scriptures daily and found that
someone had deceived her. The minister she had listened to, and her mother
had been a charter member for 48 yrs in that church, and she for 21 yrs. She
heard another minister preach another message. She got mad and was going
to prove him wrong UNTIL, she searched it out and found it was true. She left
Father and Mother's religion, forsook that church and obeyed the apostolic
plan of salvation. She found it was true and promptly obeyed. Her 15 yr old
son, my late father followed her in obeying this new message they had heard.
Grandma said she was forsaken at first, by her family members. They thought
she had lost her mind. Her mother sought God in secret prayer and He reveal-
ed Himself to her. She and her husband obeyed and followed. Many other of
her family. Grandma said she felt as if a great gulf seperated her from her
parents, etc. She said they could come to her, but she couldn't and wouldn't
go back to them.

I thank GOD for that decision made by my late paternal grandmother. In a
way, she made a decision which has blessed many generations of her family.
and mine. Of course we did have to decide individually for ourselves when we
first believed!

Anything less than FULL TRUTH is error!

If someone, in FAITH, TRULY repents, is baptized in Jesus Name, they will
receive the Holy Ghost and it will be evidenced by the Spirit giving the utter-
ance. The utterance (sound, evidence) that they have indeed received the
Spirit. It is the Promise of the Father!

Let God be true and every man a liar. If there is a problem, it is with man,
Not GOD!

Lacey, like you, I have never seen anyone that received the Holy Ghost that
did not speak in tongues, when the Spirit came. There was JOY, from the
recipiant to the attendants. Those attending the New Birth!:bliss
The signs follow the believer, not the other way around.

Falla39

Amen, and some may say people have had a change in their lives without speaking in tongues, but even people who start following a false religion, even Islam, can have a change in their life and stop drinking, ect., so just having a change is not evidence enough, God has a specific initial evidence that would leave no doubt. Repentence brings a change, but repentence alone will not save anyone, they must also be born of the water and the Spirit.

It is like unto when a baby is conceived and is like when the seed of the Word is germinated by faith, but the actual birth is deemed successful when you hear the initial evidence of the new born baby crying, likewise we know a new "babe in Christ" is born of the Spirit when we hear them joyfully "crying" out in tongues :-)

[Pressing-On]

If you don't mind I would like to use this portion of your post to say something...

I had mentioned before that if our paradigm is that one has not received the Holy Ghost until they have spoken in tongues then this will be what we recall because each person who did not speak in tongues is deemed to have not received the Holy Ghost. It is a self fulfilling teaching.

But my thought is this. I have seen people go to the altar... mean people... hateful people... terribly sinful people.

I have seen them "receive a blessing" at the altar crying and repenting before God.
I have seen people get up from that altar changed.
I have seen an attitude in them and on their faces I had never seen before.
I have seen a grumpy and hateful person all of a sudden become a happy and loving person.
I have seen a person who smoked and drank and could never give it up quit that night.

But they didn't speak in tongues.

And people congratulated them on their "blessing" and told them... you keep praying and God will fill you with the Holy Ghost. They were dismayed at this because they thought they DID receive the Holy Ghost.

Oh no... they are told. You received a blessing but when you receive the Holy Ghost you will speak in tongues and it will be so much better than what you received tonight.

I have seen them try to receive this Holy Ghost and finally quit from such deep discouragement that they couldn't receive the Holy Ghost and when they attended for the last time the record still stood... nobody ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I saw lots of signs... some even biblically explicit.

I saw love one to another.
I saw a miraculous ability to quit things that had held them captive for years.
I saw a change in spirit, attitude and nature.
I saw someone who was not the same as they used to be.
I saw someone who had received power after that this "blessing" had come upon them.

But since no one saw tongues doubt was planted in their heart and it destroyed them.

But... at the end of the day... it can still be said by those who are so fond of saying it... In all my years of living for God no one has ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I think we really need to take another look at this doctrine.

And we are to go on emotional experiences of people instead of standing on what the Word of God is saying? I'm not willing to do that.

It is all about the heart which is spoken of in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 - likening our lives/heart to those of the wayside, stony places, thorns, and good ground. Only God knows, at the end of the day, as some water, some plant, but God gives the increase. That could take years.

The Word of God still stands in the midst of this. I'm not going to interpret the Word of God on the experiences of various people, unless, that experience can be found to line up with the Word of God.

[Digging4Truth]

And we are to go on emotional experiences of people instead of standing on what the Word of God is saying? I'm not willing to do that.

It is all about the heart which is spoken of in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 - likening our lives/heart to those of the wayside, stony places, thorns, and good ground. Only God knows, at the end of the day, as some water, some plant, but God gives the increase. That could take years.

The Word of God still stands in the midst of this. I'm not going to interpret the Word of God on the experiences of various people, unless, that experience can be found to line up with the Word of God.

First... no explicit word of God has been offered. Only a verse here and a verse there packed with presuppositions.

Secondly... It isn't emotion when someone sees real change in someone who 2 hours earlier would not have had the power to make these changes. Something changed in them that they were not able to do before. They showed signs that the Bible actually DOES say is a sign of His children.

There is nothing emotionally based about that example. That is real change in a real person condescended upon by people who can't show real scriptures for their predisposed disposition.

And... true... only God knows. But there are many more than Him willing to make the judgment in the mean time.

[Pressing-On]

First... no explicit word of God has been offered. Only a verse here and a verse there packed with presuppositions.

Secondly... It isn't emotion when someone sees real change in someone who 2 hours earlier would not have had the power to make these changes. Something changed in them that they were not able to do before. They showed signs that the Bible actually DOES say is a sign of His children.

There is nothing emotionally based about that example. That is real change in a real person condescended upon by people who can't show real scriptures for their predisposed disposition.

And... true... only God knows. But there are many more than Him willing to make the judgment in the mean time.
Something changed in me when I repented and was baptized. It was because I "meant" that I was truly sorry and I didn't want to go back and be what I was. I didn't receive the Holy Ghost for three months, and I know that I was not saved or could have remain saved without it.

Now, I do believe that people can be delayed in receiving the Spirit of God by not focusing and teaching correctly on true repentance and what is involved in baptism. Focusing on tongues is a huge deterrent, IMO, unless that person already understands enough to seek God and not tongues.

[Digging4Truth]

Something changed in me when I repented and was baptized. It was because I "meant" that I was truly sorry and I didn't want to go back and be what I was. I didn't receive the Holy Ghost for three months, and I know that I was not saved or could have remain saved without it.

Now, I do believe that people can be delayed in receiving the Spirit of God by not focusing and teaching correctly on true repentance and what is involved in baptism. Focusing on tongues is a huge deterrent, IMO, unless that person already understands enough to seek God and not tongues.

So this person is unsaved still... until they speak in tongues?

[DAII]

So this person is unsaved still... until they speak in tongues?

They pat answer as PO has expressed is that they have not TRULY REPENTED.
A view expressed by the likes of Bernard as well.

There is some sin they have confessed or "left" ... the quickening from above dependent on one's righteousness, contrition and self-will and perhaps ability to recall and list previous sins. Focus, Danielson.

Perhaps if they repent like Borat was instructed to by Godwin they will speak in other tongues?

[Pressing-On]

So this person is unsaved still... until they speak in tongues?
Well, Digging, we have a couple of things going on here. Almost everyone that says you don't need to speak in tongues as initial evidence are, in fact, tongue talkers - now as we speak or at one time or another. I find that to be interesting or, possibly, just alarming.

I just don't find the scriptures speaking on the infilling of the Holy Ghost as being identified by anything else. And, Romans says that if you have not the Spirit of Christ you are none of His. That means that you cannot belong to Him and, therefore, it's looking like a salvational issue.

[Pressing-On]

They pat answer as PO has expressed is that they have not TRULY REPENTED.

A view expressed by the likes of Bernard as well.

There is some sin they have confessed or "left" ... the quickening from above dependent on one's righteousness, contrition and self-will and perhaps ability to recall and list previous sins. Focus, Danielson.

Perhaps if they repent like Borat was instructed to by Godwin they will speak in other tongues?

I think that you can be sorry about some things you have done and still hold on to things you do not think come between you and God, which can be a hindrance. That is what happened in my case. And I think that can go along with the analogy of the old and new wineskin. So, I suppose it was unknown sin to me.I realized that I was holding on to something that was keeping me from completely giving my life to God. I think mfblume has that same testimony.

The Borat thing was hilarious, I must say. And it just goes to show how trusting and happy people are to find someone in need of God. Borat, what a hoot! LOL!

[DAII]

Bernard on FOCUSING FAITH FOR THE HOLY GHOST ....

If people are taught how important it is to receive the Spirit baptism, how simple it really is to be filled with the Spirit, and how to prepare their hearts, they usually receive the Spirit easily. If the necessity of the Spirit baptism is taught many people will be filled. On the other hand, if the experience is merely presented as an optional blessing, most people will not. If repentance and faith are taught, most seekers will receive the Spirit in the water of baptism or when hands are laid upon them after repentance.

Young children, the elderly, the uneducated, the educated, the poor, and the rich all receive the Spirit. Buddhists and others from non-Christian backgrounds often receive the Spirit on their first visit to a Christian church. The accounts of Cornelius and the Ephesians both show that a person can receive the Spirit instantly, at the moment he repents and believes.

(5) We must not try to teach him how to speak in tongues. This sign will come as the Spirit gives utterance. Instead of stressing only that he should yield his tongue to God, we should stress that he should surrender his whole mind and life to God. When the seeker yields everything to God, concentrates totally on Him, and exercises faith, he will be able to yield his tongue to God.

Bernard on FOCUSING FAITH THROUGH INANIMATE OBJECTS LIKE LAYING OF HAIR:

There have been reports of women letting down their long hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea was to obligate God to answer prayer or to create a new method of praying, then this action was misguided. If instead it was a spontaneous act to confirm their consecration, then it could have been a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith.

It's about submitting all yourself and CONCENTRATING .... HARD ENOUGH ... You'll get what you want.

Zen Apostolicism. PUSH!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Amen, and some may say people have had a change in their lives without speaking in tongues, but even people who start following a false religion, even Islam, can have a change in their life and stop drinking, ect., so just having a change is not evidence enough, God has a specific initial evidence that would leave no doubt. Repentence brings a change, but repentence alone will not save anyone, they must also be born of the water and the Spirit.

It is like unto when a baby is conceived and is like when the seed of the Word is germinated by faith, but the actual birth is deemed successful when you hear the initial evidence of the new born baby crying, likewise we know a new "babe in Christ" is born of the Spirit when we hear them joyfully "crying" out in tongues :-)

Excellent points!

[DAII]

THE MOST FAMOUS CONVERSATION IN THE BIBLE
(From Max Lucado's 3:16: Numbers of Hope)

He’s waiting for the shadows. Darkness will afford the cover he covets. So he waits for the safety of nightfall. He sits near the second-floor window of his house, sipping olive-leaf tea, watching the sunset, and biding his time. Jerusalem enchants at this hour. The disappearing sunlight tints the stone streets, gilds the white houses, and highlights the blockish temple.

Nicodemus looks across the slate roofs at the massive square: gleaming and resplendent. He walked its courtyard this morning. He’ll do so again tomorrow. He’ll gather with religious leaders and do what religious leaders do: discuss God. Discuss reaching God, pleasing God, appeasing God.

God.

Pharisees converse about God. And Nicodemus sits among them. Debating. Pondering. Solving puzzles. Resolving dilemmas. Sandal-tying on the Sabbath. Feeding people who won’t work. Divorcing your wife. Dishonoring parents. What does God say? Nicodemus needs to know. It’s his job. He’s a holy man and leads holy men. His name appears on the elite list of Torah scholars. He dedicated his life to the law and occupies one of the seventy-one seats of the Judean supreme court. He has credentials, clout, and questions.

Questions for this Galilean crowd-stopper. This backwater teacher who lacks diplomas yet attracts people. Who has ample time for the happy-hour crowd but little time for clergy and the holy upper crust. He banishes demons, some say; forgives sin, others claim; purifies temples, Nicodemus has no doubt. He witnessed Jesus purge Solomon’s Porch.1 He saw the fury. Braided whip, flying doves. “There will be no pocket padding in my house!” Jesus erupted. By the time the dust settled and coins landed, hustling clerics were running a background check on him. The man from Nazareth won no favor in the temple that day.

So Nicodemus comes at night. His colleagues can’t know of the meeting. They wouldn’t understand. But Nicodemus can’t wait until they do. As the shadows darken the city, he steps out, slips unseen through the cobbled, winding streets. He passes servants lighting lamps in the courtyards and takes a path that ends at the door of a simple house. Jesus and his followers are staying here, he’s been told. Nicodemus knocks.

The noisy room silences as he enters. The men are wharf workers and tax collectors, unaccustomed to the highbrow world of a scholar. They shift in their seats. Jesus motions for the guest to sit. Nicodemus does and initiates the most famous conversation in the Bible: “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2 NKJV).

Nicodemus begins with what he “knows.” I’ve done my homework, he implies. Your work impresses me.

We listen for a kindred salutation from Jesus: “And I’ve heard of you, Nicodemus.” We expect, and Nicodemus expected, some hospitable chitchat.

None comes. Jesus makes no mention of Nicodemus’s VIP status, good intentions, or academic credentials, not because they don’t exist, but because, in Jesus’s algorithm, they don’t matter. He simply issues this proclamation: “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (v. 3 NKJV).

Behold the Continental Divide of Scripture, the international date line of faith. Nicodemus stands on one side, Jesus on the other, and Christ pulls no punches about their differences.

Nicodemus inhabits a land of good efforts, sincere gestures, and hard work. Give God your best, his philosophy says, and God does the rest.
Jesus’s response? Your best won’t do. Your works don’t work. Your finest efforts don’t mean squat. Unless you are born again, you can’t even see what God is up to.

Nicodemus hesitates on behalf of us all. Born again? “How can a man be born when he is old?” (v. 4 NKJV). You must be kidding. Put life in reverse? Rewind the tape? Start all over? We can’t be born again.

Oh, but wouldn’t we like to? A do-over. A try-again. A reload. Broken hearts and missed opportunities bob in our wake. A mulligan would be nice. Who wouldn’t cherish a second shot? But who can pull it off? Nicodemus scratches his chin and chuckles. “Yeah, a graybeard like me gets a maternity-ward recall.”

Jesus doesn’t crack a smile. “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the 5 the most famous conversation in the bible kingdom of God” (v. 5 NKJV).

About this time a gust of wind blows a few leaves through the still-open door. Jesus picks one off the floor and holds it up. God’s power works like that wind, Jesus explains. Newborn hearts are born of heaven. You can’t wish, earn, or create one. New birth? Inconceivable. God handles the task, start to finish.

Nicodemus looks around the room at the followers. Their blank expressions betray equal bewilderment.

Old Nick has no hook upon which to hang such thoughts. He speaks self-fix. But Jesus speaks—indeed introduces—a different language. Not works born of men and women, but a work done by God.

Born again. Birth, by definition, is a passive act. The enwombed child contributes nothing to the delivery. Postpartum celebrations applaud the work of the mother. No one lionizes the infant. (“Great work there, little one.”) No, give the tyke a pacifier not a medal. Mom deserves the gold. She exerts the effort. She pushes, agonizes, and delivers.

When my niece bore her first child, she invited her brother and mother to stand in the delivery room. After witnessing three hours of pushing, when the baby finally crowned, my nephew turned to his mom and said, “I’m sorry for every time I talked back to you.”

The mother pays the price of birth. She doesn’t enlist the child’s assistance or solicit his or her advice. Why would she? The baby can’t even take a breath without umbilical help, much less navigate a path into new life. Nor, Jesus is saying, can we. Spiritual rebirthing requires a capable parent, not an able infant.


Who is this parent? Check the strategically selected word again. The Greek language offers two choices for again:
1. Palin, which means a repetition of an act; to redo what was done earlier
2. Anothen, which also depicts a repeated action, but requires the original source to repeat it. It means “from above, from a higher place, things which come from heaven or God.” In other words, the one who did the work the first time does it again. This is the word Jesus chose.
The difference between the two terms is the difference between a painting by da Vinci and one by me. Suppose you and I are standing in the Louvre, admiring the famous Mona Lisa. Inspired by the work, I produce an easel and canvas and announce, “I’m going to paint this beautiful portrait again.”

And I do! Right there in the Salle des Etats, I brandish my palette and flurry my brush and re-create the Mona Lisa. Alas, Lucado is no Leonardo. Ms. Lisa has a Picassoesque imbalance to her—crooked nose and one eye higher than the other. Technically, however, I keep my pledge and paint the Mona Lisa again.

Jesus means something else. He employs the second Greek term, calling for the action of the original source. He uses the word anothen, which, if honored in the Paris gallery, would require da Vinci’s presence.

Anothen excludes:
Latter-day replicas.
Second-generation attempts.
Well-meaning imitations.
He who did it first must do it again. The original creator recreates his creation. This is the act that Jesus describes.
Born: God exerts the effort.
Again: God restores the beauty.
We don’t try again. We need, not the muscle of self, but a miracle of God.


The thought cold cocks Nicodemus. “How can this be?” (v. 9).

Jesus answers by leading him to the Hope diamond of the Bible.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

A twenty-six-word parade of hope: beginning with God, ending with life, and urging us to do the same. Brief enough to write on a napkin or memorize in a moment, yet solid enough to weather two thousand years of storms and questions. If you know nothing of the Bible, start here. If you know everything in the Bible, return here. We all need the reminder. The heart of the human problem is the heart of the human. And God’s treatment is prescribed in John 3:16.

He loves.
He gave.
We believe.
We live.

The words are to Scripture what the Mississippi River is to America—an entryway into the heartland. Believe or dismiss them, embrace or reject them, any serious consideration of Christ must include them. Would a British historian dismiss the Magna Carta? Egyptologists overlook the Rosetta stone? Could you ponder the words of Christ and never immerse yourself into John 3:16?

[DAII]

(cont.)

The verse is an alphabet of grace, a table of contents to the Christian hope, each word a safe-deposit box of jewels. Read it again, slowly and aloud, and note the word that snatches your attention. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

“God so loved the world...” We’d expect an anger-fueled God. One who punishes the world, recycles the world, forsakes the world... but loves the world?

The world? This world? Heartbreakers, hope-snatchers, and dream-dousers prowl this orb. Dictators rage. Abusers inflict. Reverends think they deserve the title. But God loves. And he loves the world so much he gave his:

Declarations?
Rules?
Dicta?
Edicts?

No.

The heart-stilling, mind-bending, deal-making-or-breaking claim of John 3:16 is this: God gave his son... his only son. No abstract ideas but a flesh-wrapped divinity. Scripture equates Jesus with God. God, then, gave himself. Why? So that “whoever believes in him shall not perish.”

John Newton, who set faith to music in “Amazing Grace,” loved this barrier-breaking pronoun. He said, “If I read ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that when John Newton believed he should have everlasting life,’ I should say, perhaps, there is some other John Newton; but ‘whosoever’ means this John Newton and the other John Newton, and everybody else, whatever his name may be.”
Whoever . . . a universal word.

And perish... a sobering word. We’d like to dilute, if not delete, the term. Not Jesus. He pounds Do Not Enter signs on every square inch of Satan’s gate and tells those hell-bent on entering to do so over his dead body. Even so, some souls insist.

In the end, some perish and some live. And what determines the difference? Not works or talents, pedigrees or possessions. Nicodemus had these in hoards. The difference is determined by our belief. “Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Bible translators in the New Hebrides islands struggled to find an appropriate verb for believe. This was a serious problem, as the word and the concept are essential to Scripture.

One Bible translator, John G. Paton, accidentally came upon a solution while hunting with a tribesman. The two men bagged a large deer and carried it on a pole along a steep mountain path to Paton’s home. When they reached the veranda, both men dropped the load and plopped into the porch chairs. As they did so, the native exclaimed in the language of his people, “My, it is good to stretch yourself out here and rest.” Paton immediately reached for paper and pencil and recorded the phrase.

As a result, his final translation of John 3:16 could be worded: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever stretcheth himself out on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Stretch out on Christ and rest.

Martin Luther did. When the great reformer was dying, severe headaches left him bedfast and pain struck. He was offered a medication to relieve the discomfort. He declined and explained, “My best prescription for head and heart is that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”

The best prescription for head and heart. Who couldn’t benefit from a dose? As things turned out, Nicodemus took his share. When Jesus was crucified, the theologian showed up with Joseph of Arimathea. The two offered their respects and oversaw Jesus’s burial. No small gesture, given the anti-Christ climate of the day. When word hit the streets that Jesus was out of the tomb and back on his feet, don’t you know Nicodemus smiled and thought of his late-night chat?

Born again, eh? Who would’ve thought he’d start with himself.

[KWSS1976]

I am still waiting for the Acts Experience to happen in the Church as it did in the bible...I have yet seen this..when it or if it ever does happen ya'll might just get me on the tongues band wagon..but something inside tells me that ain't going to happen...

[mfblume]

I am still waiting for the Acts Experience to happen in the Church as it did in the bible...I have yet seen this..when it or if it ever does happen ya'll might just get me on the tongues band wagon..but something inside tells me that ain't going to happen...

John 20:29 KJV Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Seeing is not believing. Believe and then see! :D

Anything God does must be taken from the Word and BELIEVED BEFORE we can see it.

[BroGary]

Excellent points!

There are sincere people who think that "just believing" alone is enough to be saved, but if they would take scripture as a whole and not just pick out the verses that focus on the believing aspect they would see that believing is simply one of the necessary things leading towards salvation, which include believing, repentence, being born of water (baptism in Jesus name), being born of the Spirit (initially evidenced by tongues), and enduring to the end staying faithful to the truth.

There are too many verses people would have to ignore to think that just believing alone was enough.

There are those who think that correct doctrine is not important as long as you are sincere, but that is not Bible.

There are those who think that people will be saved if they never heard the gospel, but that is not Bible.

We are not trying to be exclusive, we want as many to be saved as possible, but the Bible is clear that there is more to being saved than just believing or just being sincere and we should not give anyone false hope of being saved if they have only believed the gospel but have not obeyed the gospel.

[Digging4Truth]

but the Bible is clear that there is more to being saved than just believing or just being sincere and we should not give anyone false hope of being saved if they have only believed the gospel but have not obeyed the gospel.

Well I am certainly not talking about anything like this.

I'm talking about someone who has repented, received the Holy Ghost at an altar and was baptized in Jesus name.

[Jermyn Davidson]

There are sincere people who think that "just believing" alone is enough to be saved, but if they would take scripture as a whole and not just pick out the verses that focus on the believing aspect they would see that believing is simply one of the necessary things leading towards salvation, which include believing, repentence, being born of water (baptism in Jesus name), being born of the Spirit (initially evidenced by tongues), and enduring to the end staying faithful to the truth.

There are too many verses people would have to ignore to think that just believing alone was enough.

There are those who think that correct doctrine is not important as long as you are sincere, but that is not Bible.

There are those who think that people will be saved if they never heard the gospel, but that is not Bible.

We are not trying to be exclusive, we want as many to be saved as possible, but the Bible is clear that there is more to being saved than just believing or just being sincere and we should not give anyone false hope of being saved if they have only believed the gospel but have not obeyed the gospel.


Bro Gary,

In regards to what I have highlighted from your post, how can anyone make the argument that if a person does not speak in tongues they are not saved?

To make that argument would be to make an unbiblical argument-- an argument that does not hold water, when the Bible is taken in whole and not piecemeal.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I have some views on all of this,but I don't feel up to posting much today.

[BroGary]

John 20:29 KJV Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Seeing is not believing. Believe and then see! :D

Anything God does must be taken from the Word and BELIEVED BEFORE we can see it.

Good point, we must receive the promises by faith, including the promise of the Holy Ghost, some people may take a while to reach the point where they really expect God to fill them.

Lack of complete repentence is another possible hinderance to receiving the Holy Ghost quickly.

The mindset with many people in today's world is to get whatever you want to give them, but don't ask them to change how they live, they may want the Holy Ghost, but some of them might not have reached the point of being willing to change how they live, or perhaps they might have some unforgiveness in their heart, someone they have not forgiven.

There is a tract called "Keys to receiving the Holy Ghost" that can help people be aware of what might be hindering them from receiving.

In the book of Acts, after hearing Peter preach, some of those who heard the message said -

Acts 2:37 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?

Note that they were "pricked in their heart", they felt deep conviction that led them to be willing to do what they needed to do.

How many people try to receive the Holy Ghost without first reaching the point of such Godly sorrow that they cry out with tears of repentence and with a willing heart that says "what shall I do ?"

In today's world the public in general is probally dull of hearing, they have been so engulfed with "christian" religions all their life and many have a false view of what church is (a solemn and dry ritual) that they might have a hard time accepting what it really should be like, whereas back in the apostles day this was a new and fresh thing they had not heard before.

Having said that, there have been, and still are, large services in various parts of the world where multitudes of people do get the Holy Ghost all on the same day, I remember hearing how Billy Cole preached at some of them.

God is still willing to give anyone the Holy Ghost immediately on the spot without having to tarry for days or even hours, but we must have our hearts where it needs to be in order to receive, and some people take longer to get their hearts and mindset to where it is like those in Acts 2:37.

[Digging4Truth]

Now somebody remind me.

What scriptural basis does one glean the concept that tongues is the absolute and required initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

[BroGary]

Bro Gary,

In regards to what I have highlighted from your post, how can anyone make the argument that if a person does not speak in tongues they are not saved?

To make that argument would be to make an unbiblical argument-- an argument that does not hold water, when the Bible is taken in whole and not piecemeal.

Simple, we know that receiving the Holy Ghost is a must to be saved, along with repentence and baptism in Jesus name (being born of water and of the Spirit) and we believe that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Of course those of you who don't accept tongues as being the initial evidence are not going to accept that anyhow.

Again, to clarify, "tongues" in and of itself does not save you, it is simply the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost which is necessary.

[Pressing-On]

Good point, we must receive the promises by faith, including the promise of the Holy Ghost, some people may take a while to reach the point where they really expect God to fill them.

Lack of complete repentence is another possible hinderance to receiving the Holy Ghost quickly.

The mindset with many people in today's world is to get whatever you want to give them, but don't ask them to change how they live, they may want the Holy Ghost, but some of them might not have reached the point of being willing to change how they live, or perhaps they might have some unforgiveness in their heart, someone they have not forgiven.

There is a tract called "Keys to receiving the Holy Ghost" that can help people be aware of what might be hindering them from receiving.

In the book of Acts, after hearing Peter preach, some of those who heard the message said -

Acts 2:37 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?

Note that they were "pricked in their heart", they felt deep conviction that led them to be willing to do what they needed to do.

How many people try to receive the Holy Ghost without first reaching the point of such Godly sorrow that they cry out with tears of repentence and with a willing heart that says "what shall I do ?"

In today's world the public in general is probally dull of hearing, they have been so engulfed with "christian" religions all their life and many have a false view of what church is (a solemn and dry ritual) that they might have a hard time accepting what it really should be like, whereas back in the apostles day this was a new and fresh thing they had not heard before.

Having said that, there have been, and still are, large services in various parts of the world where multitudes of people do get the Holy Ghost all on the same day, I remember hearing how Billy Cole preached at some of them.

God is still willing to give anyone the Holy Ghost immediately on the spot without having to tarry for days or even hours, but we must have our hearts where it needs to be in order to receive, and some people take longer to get their hearts and mindset to where it is like those in Acts 2:37.

I absolutely agree with your post and especially that in bold. I was praying for a young woman that we had given a Bible study to. She had repented and was baptized. It was so hard for me to see her pray and not be filled with the Holy Ghost. I prayed and God spoke to me about the passage on the wineskins - old and new. He spoke to me about her need to empty herself out in order to be filled as an old wineskin would not hold new wine. So, at repentance, I'm thinking she didn't realize, from her background, exactly what that entailed. She was eventually filled with the Holy Ghost.

My husband and I were talking about how "repentance" and people these days who don't seem to take that as serious as they should or have in bygone days.

I wonder (although I'm sure there are many various reasons) if it's all the church hype and feel good type services people are seeking? It seems to be all about making ME feel good instead of coming to church to feel after God to see who He wants to touch, bless, set free, and heal, etc. for each service. It seems we are in a very narcissistic society which is bleeding into the church.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Simple, we know that receiving the Holy Ghost is a must to be saved, along with repentence and baptism in Jesus name (being born of water and of the Spirit) and we believe that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Of course those of you who don't accept tongues as being the initial evidence are not going to accept that anyhow.

Again, to clarify, "tongues" in and of itself does not save you, it is simply the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost which is necessary.


I used to accept this, now I don't.

If tongues does not save, then why use it as a benchmark as to whether or not a person is saved?


Furthermore, our AoG and COGIC brothers who have not been baptized in Jesus Name, who speak in tongues, do live a holy life-- are they not saved too?

[BroGary]

I absolutely agree with your post and especially that in bold. I was praying for a young woman that we had given a Bible study to. She had repented and was baptized. It was so hard for me to see her pray and not be filled with the Holy Ghost. I prayed and God spoke to me about the passage on the wineskins - old and new. He spoke to me about her need to empty herself out in order to be filled as an old wineskin would not hold new wine. So, at repentance, I'm thinking she didn't realize, from her background, exactly what that entailed. She was eventually filled with the Holy Ghost.

My husband and I were talking about how "repentance" and people these days who don't seem to take that as serious as they should or have in bygone days.

I wonder (although I'm sure there are many various reasons) if it's all the church hype and feel good type services people are seeking? It seems to be all about making ME feel good instead of coming to church to feel after God to see who He wants to touch, bless, set free, and heal, etc. for each service. It seems we are in a very narcissistic society which is bleeding into the church.

You brought out a very good point, many people don't have a true understanding of all what true repentence really infers.

Many think it is merely being sorry for past sins, but the word "repent" actually means to do an "about face" (I did enough of those during boot camp in the military :-)

We need to not only have a deep sorrow for past sins, but a complete willingness to change so we live a live pleasing to Him in obedience to His Word, and not think we can continue to do any of the things we used to that are contrary to His Word.

Another thing is that we must truely hunger and thirst to be filled, it can't simply be a casual thing we do simply because someone said it was necessary, like pulling a first-aid kit off the shelf to fix a boo-boo.

God wants us to so very much desire Him to be part of our lives, and not just simply trying to meet a requirement.

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Psalms 42:1 As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

[Hoovie]

Gary, the issue does seem to become muddled when we know and see many non-tongue speakers who seem to have turned "about face" and are completely willing to live the Christian life.

Their desire and hunger for God is also apparent.

Do you not know such people? I know many - even pastors and workers in the Kingdom.

Also, there are those who do speak in tongues (and by no means most or all) who have not turned "about face" nor appear hungry for God...

It's because of what I indicated above that I tend to treat the tongues issue as a non sequitur...

I simply don't see the "evidence" for the case you are making.



You brought out a very good point, many people don't have a true understanding of all what true repentence really infers.

Many think it is merely being sorry for past sins, but the word "repent" actually means to do an "about face" (I did enough of those during boot camp in the military :-)

We need to not only have a deep sorrow for past sins, but a complete willingness to change so we live a live pleasing to Him in obedience to His Word, and not think we can continue to do any of the things we used to that are contrary to His Word.

Another thing is that we must truely hunger and thirst to be filled, it can't simply be a casual thing we do simply because someone said it was necessary, like pulling a first-aid kit off the shelf to fix a boo-boo.

God wants us to so very much desire Him to be part of our lives, and not just simply trying to meet a requirement.

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Psalms 42:1 As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

[Sam]

Now somebody remind me.

What scriptural basis does one glean the concept that tongues is the absolute and required initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

There are about 20 records of people being converted in the Book of Acts. In some cases it is recorded that these conversions were accompanied with or followed by water baptism and/or Spirit Baptism. In the cases where it is recorded that people received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit came upon them, or the Spirit fell upon them, or they "received" (made room for) the Holy Spirit, or they were filled with the Spirit) it mentions or infers that speaking with tongues accompanied or followed that experience. Based on these examples we have come up with the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. The "initial physical evidence" doctrine states that speaking with tongues is "the initial physical evidence" of receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism. Some Christians think that there is enough scriptural support for this doctrine and some do not. Most Apostolic/Charismatic/Pentecostal people believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. Among those who believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine there is a small minority who believe that the Holy Ghost Baptism is the same as being born of the Spirit so these folks basically believe that unless a person has spoken with tongues, that person is not born of the Spirit or is not saved.

[BroGary]

Gary, the issue does seem to become muddled when we know and see many non-tongue speakers who seem to have turned "about face" and are completely willing to live the Christian life.

Their desire and hunger for God is also apparent.

Do you not know such people? I know many - even pastors and workers in the Kingdom.

Also, there are those who do speak in tongues (and by no means most or all) who have not turned "about face" nor appear hungry for God...

It's because of what I indicated above that I tend to treat the tongues issue as a non sequitur...

I simply don't see the "evidence" for the case you are making.

No offense taken bro, we will have to politely agree to disagree with no hard feelings.

Having said that, there are likely some out there who didn't do an about face who did not speak in genuine tongues (either taught, or imitated what they thought they was supposed to say) or some who may had temporairly done an about face, got the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of tongues, then went back to their old ways, "backslidden on the pews")

Those who seemed to do an about face and have a changed life does not mean they received the Holy Ghost, there are people who become devout muslims, mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, ect. and have a changed life, giving up alcohol, ect. so that alone is not enough evidence.

Anyhow, what others and myself have said in defense of tongues being the initial evidence I am not going to rehash here in this post, but because of all that and probally some stuff I can't think of right now I am convinced tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Again, no hard feelings, we simply agree to disagree on this particular point :-)

[Sam]

...
Again, no hard feelings, we simply agree to disagree on this particular point :-)

We Christians will never see eye to eye on everything. Each of us looks at the Word and prays for understanding but we some times come to different conclusions.

I agree with your post, Bro. Gary. We should agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

[BroGary]

We Christians will never see eye to eye on everything. Each of us looks at the Word and prays for understanding but we some times come to different conclusions.

I agree with your post, Bro. Gary. We should agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Well, on that we can agree - to be able to disagree in a civilized and polite way :-)

[Hoovie]

Understood. I have long ago determined if these things can't be discussed with mutual respect they can't possibly be beneficial.

The reason I even responded with "about face", "desire", "hunger" and "completely willing" was because you gave these as qualifiers to receive the Holy Spirit...

Blessings

Steve


No offense taken bro, we will have to politely agree to disagree with no hard feelings.

Having said that, there are likely some out there who didn't do an about face who did not speak in genuine tongues (either taught, or imitated what they thought they was supposed to say) or some who may had temporairly done an about face, got the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of tongues, then went back to their old ways, "backslidden on the pews")

Those who seemed to do an about face and have a changed life does not mean they received the Holy Ghost, there are people who become devout muslims, mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, ect. and have a changed life, giving up alcohol, ect. so that alone is not enough evidence.

Anyhow, what others and myself have said in defense of tongues being the initial evidence I am not going to rehash here in this post, but because of all that and probally some stuff I can't think of right now I am convinced tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Again, no hard feelings, we simply agree to disagree on this particular point :-)

[jfrog]

Gary, the issue does seem to become muddled when we know and see many non-tongue speakers who seem to have turned "about face" and are completely willing to live the Christian life.

Their desire and hunger for God is also apparent.

Do you not know such people? I know many - even pastors and workers in the Kingdom.

Also, there are those who do speak in tongues (and by no means most or all) who have not turned "about face" nor appear hungry for God...

It's because of what I indicated above that I tend to treat the tongues issue as a non sequitur...

I simply don't see the "evidence" for the case you are making.

:thumbsup

[pelathais]

Do I have to follow you? Not happenin'. :nah :heeheehee

Not gonna follow DA2's example and search for truth? What will you follow then?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus Christ is also the only One who can save us (John 14:6). We can't "save ourselves" in the sense of eternal salvation (Titus 3:5-8).

[Pressing-On]

Not gonna follow DA2's example and search for truth? What will you follow then?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus Christ is also the only One who can save us (John 14:6). We can't "save ourselves" in the sense of eternal salvation (Titus 3:5-8).

Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

His Spirit draws and we decide - save yourself. It not easy believism. We have a part in salvation, accepting what He has to offer us.

Barnes: Save yourselves - This expression here denotes, preserve yourselves from the influence, opinions, and fate of this generation. It implies that they were to use diligence and effort to deliver themselves. God deals with people as free agents. He calls upon them to put forth their own power and effort to be saved. Unless they put forth their own strength, they will never be saved. When they are saved, they will ascribe to God the praise for having inclined them to seek him, and for the grace whereby they are saved.

[Digging4Truth]

There are about 20 records of people being converted in the Book of Acts. In some cases it is recorded that these conversions were accompanied with or followed by water baptism and/or Spirit Baptism. In the cases where it is recorded that people received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit came upon them, or the Spirit fell upon them, or they "received" (made room for) the Holy Spirit, or they were filled with the Spirit) it mentions or infers that speaking with tongues accompanied or followed that experience. Based on these examples we have come up with the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. The "initial physical evidence" doctrine states that speaking with tongues is "the initial physical evidence" of receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism. Some Christians think that there is enough scriptural support for this doctrine and some do not. Most Apostolic/Charismatic/Pentecostal people believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. Among those who believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine there is a small minority who believe that the Holy Ghost Baptism is the same as being born of the Spirit so these folks basically believe that unless a person has spoken with tongues, that person is not born of the Spirit or is not saved.

But of those 20 (barring the initial outpouring) only 2 mention that they spoke with tongues.

That seems like mighty flimsy evidence that this is an absolute initial evidence without which one has not received the Holy Ghost.

[Barb]

You brought out a very good point, many people don't have a true understanding of all what true repentence really infers.

Many think it is merely being sorry for past sins, but the word "repent" actually means to do an "about face" (I did enough of those during boot camp in the military :-)

We need to not only have a deep sorrow for past sins, but a complete willingness to change so we live a live pleasing to Him in obedience to His Word, and not think we can continue to do any of the things we used to that are contrary to His Word.


So, what then is conversion?

Peter said, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:19).

The Strong's Dictionary reads that repent means to be sorry, while converted means to turn around or reverse.

IMO, one can be genuinely contrite for a lot of reasons...

A song convicts them and they are moved to repentance. A message is so moving as to bring them to an altar.

They are sincerely sorry and regret the sin, thus they confess their sin to the Lord and repent.

But without a true conversion of the heart and mind...a total turn around and desire to never return to the place they were before, they will return to it.

[Falla39]

Many years ago, a young mother and friend came to church with me. She had two small children and was divorced. As she continued to come to church, she eventually went to the alter and later wanted to be baptized. My late father baptized her in Jesus Name. My mother and I went with her to the room where she was to prepare to be baptized. After being baptized, we returned to the room so she could change into dry clothing. Mom and I kept praying and she also. All of a sudden she got a good blessing and began to shout. She definitely was feeling good. She announced she received the Holy Ghost. Although she received a good blessing, there was no evidence that she had spoken in tongues. Mom and I both noted that!

This precious lady immediately started wearing dresses, no make-up, jewelry, etc. Sold her TV. No one told her to do these things. She did them on her own. She was not mature spiritually to understand why she was doing this. She was just doing/trying to pattern after others. Some people do things because others do them. Some people do things because they feel it is the right thing to do. Others do things because of who they are.

I took her and her children with me to campmeeting. Paid all her expenses. As we were nearing our city coming home, she cried and said, "I just wish I could stay there from now on. It's like another world at campmeeting." We can go somewhere for a great family, etc., gathering and be sad when we have to leave. But we still live in this world. WE'RE NOT HOME YET!

She continued to come to church with her children, then got a new job with the local police department. She started missing church and then quit alto gether. One day I saw her, in her uniform, heavy make-up, etc. I saw her later at the super-
market. She said she was happy. Eventually she went to work for the county sheriff's department and I seldom saw her. Then she moved to the county seat, continuing to work for the sheriff's department.

Her children grew up and the daughter married a catholic boy. Her son went to a Baptist Bible school. She asked the local Baptist minister to give a recommendation for the school. He did so. (she had been raised Baptist). Years later I ran into him at an outlet mall where he worked. He started telling me he was ordained as a Baptist minister. Started telling me about what was wrong with our faith.

Later I made contact with her, and two of our daughters and I met in her city for lunch. Her two children (grown now) were there too. The daughter with her husband and baby. The mother expressed to me that she was concerned that her grandbaby would be raised catholic. We had a pleasant time and took pictures, etc. We have prayed for her and her family all these years. Her son can be found in the gay parades. Very actively involved in the gay movement. My late father used to say, "There are alternatives to obeying TRUTH"!

I wonder how many, through the years, even in Pentecost, received a blessing at the entrance of the Kingdom, but did not press on into the kingdom. Perhaps similiar to a child being born. Some get to the entrance of the womb/tomb, and give up. I've seen people that appeared to be well on their way to receiving the Holy Ghost and suddenly give up. Quit and refuse to go any farther. I believe we cheat ourselves when we do not press on until we have the joy and the evidence that we have truly been born again, of water and of the Spirit.

Not long ago I once again connected with this lady AND her two children, via Facebook. I pray that one day she will realize that a onetime blessing is not sufficient for a lifetime! Eternity??

Could we compare the Holy Ghost as the down payment/earnest money,put in escrow, until the full purchace is completed at the appointed time of the closing. The evidence of things not seen yet, but by faith we wait for it. After the "CLOSING", we are given full possession.

Falla39

[faithit166]

amen falla

[BroGary]

So, what then is conversion?

Peter said, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:19).

The Strong's Dictionary reads that repent means to be sorry, while converted means to turn around or reverse.

IMO, one can be genuinely contrite for a lot of reasons...

A song convicts them and they are moved to repentance. A message is so moving as to bring them to an altar.

They are sincerely sorry and regret the sin, thus they confess their sin to the Lord and repent.

But without a true conversion of the heart and mind...a total turn around and desire to never return to the place they were before, they will return to it.

"repent" does infer more than "just" being sorry but also infers action in making a change in the direction of one's life.

from the merriam-webster.com dictionary:

"1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life"

Someone we know who spent time in England while in the military noticed that when the Brittish soldiers were marching in formation and the drill instructer wanted them to go in the opposition direction they would give the command "REPENT !", which they understood meant to do an 180 degree turn and go in the opposite direction.

the word "converted" from merriam-webster.com includes:

"1 a : to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another"

So it would seem to repent and be converted would mean to be sorry enough for your sins that you take action in making a change in your life's direction from a life of sin, and also change (convert) your belief from how you used to believe to the gospel truth, and of course if you really believe the truth you will also obey the truth and be baptized in Jesus name and seek to receive the Holy Ghost.

[DAII]

"repent" does infer more than "just" being sorry but also infers action in making a change in the direction of one's life.

from the merriam-webster.com dictionary:

"1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life"

Someone we know who spent time in England while in the military noticed that when the Brittish soldiers were marching in formation and the drill instructer wanted them to go in the opposition direction they would give the command "REPENT !", which they understood meant to do an 180 degree turn and go in the opposite direction.

the word "converted" from merriam-webster.com includes:

"1 a : to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another"

So it would seem to repent and be converted would mean to be sorry enough for your sins that you take action in making a change in your life's direction from a life of sin, and also change (convert) your belief from how you used to believe to the gospel truth, and of course if you really believe the truth you will also obey the truth and be baptized in Jesus name and seek to receive the Holy Ghost.

That's an interesting hermeneutic there, Gary ... using Webster's and the KJV to interpret scriptural intent ... except Peter didn't use the word "converted" in our modern evangelical fundamentalist sense ....

but rather in the Hebraic tradition ... where there are no exclamation points, uses a redundancy when he emphatically re-states, "turning" / "returning" with the synonym epistrayate (transitively to turn to) in this paranthetical.

Other translations do more accurate justice to the Greek text.

19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, (NIV)


19 “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; (NASB)


The repentance and turning through belief and reliance on Him for our salvation ... washes sins ... not a properly administered baptism ...

Peter clarifying his message at Pentecost as to what remits/forgives sin .. eliminating any doubt as to his intent regarding "eis" in Acts 2:38

It is this reality and the term aphesis being accurately translated as forgiveness not just remitted that made some UPCI preachers pass a pro-KJV resolution in the 1950's and reject "revised" editions.

Truth scares some folks if it doesn't fit their man-made doctrinal boxes.

[Sam]

But of those 20 (barring the initial outpouring) only 2 mention that they spoke with tongues.

That seems like mighty flimsy evidence that this is an absolute initial evidence without which one has not received the Holy Ghost.

yes.
--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 Sprirt 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.

[Sam]

That's an interesting hermeneutic there, Gary ... using Webster's and the KJV to interpret scriptural intent ... except Peter didn't use the word "converted" in our modern evangelical fundamentalist sense ....

but rather in the Hebraic tradition ... where there are no exclamation points, emphatically re-states, "turning" / "returning" with the synonym epistrayate , transitively to turn to, in this paranthetical.

Other translations do more accurate justice to the Greek text.

19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, (NIV)


19 “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; (NASB)


The repentance and turning through belief and reliance on Him for our salvation ... washes sins ... not a properly administered baptism ...

Peter clarifying his message at Pentecost as to what remits/forgives sin .. eliminating any doubt as to his intent regarding "eis" in Acts 2:38

It is this reality and the term aphesis being accurately translated as forgiveness not just remitted that made some UPCI preachers pass a pro-KJV resolution in the 1950's and reject "revised" editions.

Truth scares some folks if it doesn't fit their man-made doctrinal boxes.

Thanks, Dan'l

[BroGary]

That's an interesting hermeneutic there, Gary ... using Webster's and the KJV to interpret scriptural intent ... except Peter didn't use the word "converted" in our modern evangelical fundamentalist sense ....

but rather in the Hebraic tradition ... where there are no exclamation points, uses a redundancy when he emphatically re-states, "turning" / "returning" with the synonym epistrayate (transitively to turn to) in this paranthetical.

Other translations do more accurate justice to the Greek text.

19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, (NIV)


19 “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; (NASB)


The repentance and turning through belief and reliance on Him for our salvation ... washes sins ... not a properly administered baptism ...

Peter clarifying his message at Pentecost as to what remits/forgives sin .. eliminating any doubt as to his intent regarding "eis" in Acts 2:38

It is this reality and the term aphesis being accurately translated as forgiveness not just remitted that made some UPCI preachers pass a pro-KJV resolution in the 1950's and reject "revised" editions.

Truth scares some folks if it doesn't fit their man-made doctrinal boxes.

Sorry, but you can't simply ignore all the other verses that show that just believing and repentence alone is not enough to make Heaven.

As I mentioned in another discussion:

The Bible is clear that salvation takes more than JUST believing.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Other scriptures show repentance is a MUST.
Other scriptures show receiving the Holy Ghost is a MUST.
Other scriptures show enduring faithful to the end is a MUST.

IF a person JUST believes, but does not also repent, get baptized in Jesus name, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure faithful to the end, they will not be saved.

[DAII]

Sorry, but you can't simply ignore all the other verses that show that just believing and repentence alone is not enough to make Heaven.

As I mentioned in another discussion:

The Bible is clear that salvation takes more than JUST believing.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Other scriptures show repentance is a MUST.
Other scriptures show receiving the Holy Ghost is a MUST.
Other scriptures show enduring faithful to the end is a MUST.

IF a person JUST believes, but does not also repent, get baptized in Jesus name, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure faithful to the end, they will not be saved.

There a plethora of musts in the God's Word ... Gary. Like I must love my neighbor ... but does this cause salvation or the New Birth ... or is it a result of salvation and the New Birth?

Repentant believers will get baptized, Gary. If not you never believed. The rest of Christianity believes and preaches this. While unbelief of course will mean that baptism and the other steps born again believers take ... will never happen ... therefore, they are condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christ and some OPs preach that baptism is needed for remission/forgiveness of sin. While you also believe that salvation and forgiveness hangs in the balance based on the baptizer getting the right formula said at baptism.

Yet the Bible does not teach this ... there is no biblical teaching that states such a thing. Doing something in His name ... does not mean necessarily dictate "proper verbalization" ... yet throughout Scripture ... in OTHER PLACES like the OT also .. it has always meant doing so in the power and authority of the Lord.

The doctrines of necessary invocation and glossalia to OBTAIN SALVATION is where you fall off the apostolic map, doctrinally.

Logically, also, if you believe that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... then you should have no problems with a triune formula said at baptism because it's understood the baptism authorized (Mat. 28) is in the Lord's name ... knowing ... like all Christians that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

[Falla39]

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Falla39

[DAII]

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Falla39

AMEN

[BroGary]

There a plethora of musts in the God's Word ... Gary. Like I must love my neighbor ... but does this cause salvation or the New Birth ... or is it a result of salvation and the New Birth?

Repentant believers will get baptized, Gary. If not you never believed. The rest of Christianity believes and preaches this. While unbelief of course will mean that baptism and the other steps born again believers take ... will never happen ... therefore, they are condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics, Mormons, Church of Christ and some OPs preach that baptism is needed for remission/forgiveness of sin. While you also believe that salvation and forgiveness hangs in the balance based on the baptizer getting the right formula said at baptism.

Yet the Bible does not teach this ... there is no biblical teaching that states such a thing. Doing something in His name ... does not mean necessarily dictate "proper verbalization" ... yet throughout Scripture ... in OTHER PLACES like the OT also .. it has always meant doing so in the power and authority of the Lord.

The doctrines of necessary invocation and glossalia to OBTAIN SALVATION is where you fall off the apostolic map, doctrinally.

Logically, also, if you believe that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... then you should have no problems with a triune formula said at baptism because it's understood the baptism authorized (Mat. 28) is in the Lord's name ... knowing ... like all Christians that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but is says AND is baptized, not those who believe will likely get baptized.

The Bible says we must not only believe the gospel, but we must OBEY the gospel, obedience REQUIRES action on our part.

Jesus even said being born of water and of the Spirit was a MUST.

So I stand firm by these truths that a person MUST believe, repent, be baptized in JESUS name, receive the Holy Ghost and endure faithful to the end to make Heaven.

[DAII]

Sorry, but is says AND is baptized, not those who believe will likely get baptized.

The Bible says we must not only believe the gospel, but we must OBEY the gospel, obedience REQUIRES action on our part.

Jesus even said being born of water and of the Spirit was a MUST.

So I stand firm by these truths that a person MUST believe, repent, be baptized in JESUS name, receive the Holy Ghost and endure faithful to the end to make Heaven.

Stand firm bro in your extrabiblical religious traditions ... and be prepared to greet untold millions of believers who obeyed the Gospel by trusting in Christ when we get to heaven ...

We love and appreciate you even if the Truth alludes you ... even if you would add to the Gospel and Christ's conversation with Nicodemus about being born from above ....

[RevDWW]

Stand firm bro in your extrabiblical religious traditions ... and be prepared to greet untold millions of believers who obeyed the Gospel by trusting in Christ when we get to heaven ...

We love and appreciate you even if the Truth alludes you ... even if you would add to the Gospel and Christ's conversation with Nicodemus about being born from above ....

The truth is faith requires action or it's not really faith.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

There are none so blind as those that will not see......but we love the blind just the same.....:thumbsup

[Falla39]

Mark 16:16 (King James Version)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Why! Because he hath not believed in the NAME of the begotten Son of God!) What's HIS NAME!! JESUS! For He shall save HIS people from their sins!

John 3:17,18
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[DAII]

The truth is faith requires action or it's not really faith.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

There are none so blind as those that will not see......but we love the blind just the same.....:thumbsup


Read again slowly DWW ... we've had this conversation ... its say the works and faith are justified through these good deeds ... keeping in mind the context was giving to the poor ... most importantly James never said ... not that we are justified by works in regards to our standing before God and salvation ... but that faith will effectuate good works ... He knows his bible.

You're stating the obvious .... again ... but looking to justify your paradigm.

[DAII]

Here it goes again, DWW ... Context ... not prooftexting.

http://inchristalone.org/WasAbrahamSaved.htm

WHAT ABRAHAM’S FAITH MEANS

The story of Abraham concerning the promised offspring is a perfect, God-inspired illustration of the working of justification by faith. God gave Abraham a word of promise that he would be the father of many nations. He was to be the father of the Messiah. Through him would come the offspring (singular) which would bless the whole world. But, Abraham was childless. Sarah was barren. They could do nothing to make the promise come to pass. They did try to do many things to help God, but He rejected them all. The child they had was a miracle - a supernatural work of conception by God. Sarah gave birth by faith alone: "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable." (Heb. 11:11-12 KJV)

All they could do was receive the miracle. The promise was given to Abraham before he was faithful. He was not faithful in order to earn the promise, but because of the assurance of the promise. This is true of justification by faith. We bring nothing to the table of salvation but open empty hands. God promises, fulfills the promise supernaturally, and we in awe, wonder, and trust receive the gift of new birth.

This story tells us something else. The faith that Abraham placed in God’s declaration of justification was not mental assent. It was a faith which endured throughout and up to the end of his life. Justifying faith is anything but "easy believism." It is a rugged faith created in the heart by the entrance of the Word of promise. Nothing will separate one who believes from the love of God. "Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:6)

If we understand James correctly, we see that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was evidence that God was right in Genesis fifteen. God’s justifying work was effective in Abraham’s life the rest of his life. The test of time and of God proved that the work of justification is valid. This is in fact why God tested Abraham. It was not to see if he was worthy of salvation. But, it was to show the world that his salvation was sure. Based on this sure salvation, God gave the world an object lesson of the Gospel: the offering of one’s only son.

While Abraham was justified (made right with God) by faith alone, without works (Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4), Abraham's faith (not his person) was justified by what he did. [No person justified by faith is free to live a life of ungodliness. All who are justified by faith are called to a life of obedience to Christ and true holiness, which is the character of Jesus Christ.] Paul says in Romans, ABRAHAM was justified. In James, Abraham’s FAITH was justified. For Paul in Romans, the SINNER is forgiven. In James, the believer is approved as a believer evidenced by a changed life. When we are justified, we are saved through trust alone in Christ alone. As a result, that faith will be demonstrated through the living presence of Jesus in our everyday life. If it is not, we must examine our faith to see if it is in Christ alone or in Christ plus something else. THIS IS THE TRUE AND FINAL TEST.

Abraham showed by his works that his faith was in God alone. This is why Abraham was saved. He was saved by faith in God alone. His faith was "justified" or proved by his works. He was not justified FOR his works. His justification or salvation was APART from and PRIOR to his works. But the works will always follow because the heart that is redeemed will desire to glorify God in true discipleship and submission to the will of God.

James was not teaching that a person must keep the Law or perform certain religious functions to be saved. That is far from the message of the book of James. It is also interesting that the people who want to quote James against the "believe only" people don’t seem to have a proper understanding about what James is teaching. In fact they may come under James’ correction for unwittingly doing what James is denouncing.

INAUTHENTIC FAITH

James'’ letter (as is true in most epistles) reveals certain problems among his readers. We can discern these problems by noting the admonitions given to them by James. The controversy of James was that some Jewish Christians were claiming to have the "faith of Christ," while their lives failed to reflect the presence of Christ. How was this known? Was it by super-spiritual discernment? No. It was by the absence of Christ’s character in their lives. This is an observation that even the world can make (John 13:35). They were very religious and had their doctrine fairly straight. However, their faith was lacking because it did not reflect the One in whom they supposedly believed.

James’ admonitions indicate they failed in many areas of character and conduct. They did not have compassion on the widows and orphans (1:27), they were showing favoritism and were prejudiced (2:1), they were intolerant (2:4), they failed to fulfill the "royal law" (2:13) [not the Mosaic Law] which was to "love your neighbor as yourself" [which was the ethic or law of Jesus], they came up short in providing for the needy (2:16), some were cursing others with their tongues and violating others with their mouths (3:10), out of the heart they displayed bitter envy and selfish ambitions (3:14), they were boastful and "false to the truth" (3:14), they engaged in conflicts and disputes (4:1), they were proud and arrogant (4:7-10)(4:16), they spoke evil against their brothers (4:11), they were judgmental (4:12), they did not do what was right although they knew it to be right (4:17), they grumbled against other brothers and sisters (5:9). James says this type of living is not inspired of God, but is unspiritual and devilish. It is inspired by the flesh (Jas. 3:15).

The works that they failed to keep were not the works of the law. James was correcting their failure to keep the ROYAL LAW of Christ. This was even after claiming justifying faith in Christ. He was saying that their behavior did not reflect that of one who had true faith in Jesus. They should have been compassionate, impartial, tolerant, blessing with their words, sweet and contented, selfless, peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, full of righteousness, humble, patient, confessing sins, and leading sinners back to God. [Notice that James does not list any formulas, duties, ordinances, or codes of outward appearance in this list. I point this out because James is used by some to prove that these are the "works" to which James is referring. And then the huge assumption is made that they are necessary for justification (or salvation).]

DEMON FAITH

The greatest condemnation James attributes to them is that their faith is no more than DEMON FAITH. Isn’t that a harsh accusation? Not if you understand the gravity of the error these Jewish Christians were making. In 2:19 he praised their faith in the central tenet of Judaism - belief that Yahweh was One. He says, "you believe the central tenet . . . good!" He commends them for making a significant response. However, he tells them, so do the demons. James defines their faith as no better than that of the demons. What does he mean by "demon faith?" Demon faith is belief or assent without saving trust. The demons can believe that God is One. They cannot believe that God is their righteousness. They cannot be justified by their faith!

Demon faith is having knowledge and loyalty to the traditional beliefs without having true, living, vibrant, justifying faith in Jesus Christ alone. The way James shows them that they have demon faith and not justifying faith is in their character. It is in the very way they lived. They do not do the works of Jesus. Those who truly trust Jesus will manifest the life or Spirit of Jesus. Not in merely adhering to all the correct teachings, or possessing spiritual power through signs and miracles, but in showing forth the love, grace and mercy of Jesus in their relationships with others.

James is not saying we are saved by works (with "works" meaning obedience). He is saying that if we are saved, truly right with God, it will show in our attitudes, character and relationships with others (especially brothers and sisters in Christ).

Those who want to make James say that we are saved by our obedience, commit the error of making sanctification their justification. Sounds complicated? It really isn’t. In Romans and Galatians Paul is clear that we are saved by justification and not by our sanctification. Granted, our sanctification is necessary and will flow from our justification. However, we must keep the distinction between justification and sanctification clear. This way we won't fall into either legalism or lawlessness.

We are not justified by our sanctification. Justification (salvation by faith in Christ alone) is not dependent or conditional to sanctification (growth in the likeness of Christ). But, sanctification depends on and is conditional to justification. I know this all sounds technical. But, it’s important that to have a clear understanding of the differences. If we don’t, we will fall into all types of corrupt ways of believing. When we err in our faith, we err in our living. I believe that many Christians struggle with depression, guilt and loneliness because they do not really understand the Gospel. The Biblical Gospel will free us from these things.

[DAII]

One wise person asked a very poignant question: "Is acting upon our faith a part of faith itself?" With respect to justifying faith, the answer is a definite NO. The act of believing is the point of being justified and accepted by God. The "acting upon our faith" is the result of that faith. It is not the condition for our justification. As made clear in Romans four, when we work for something we are paid out of debt. But, when we do not work, and are paid something, it is a gift - an act of grace. We are saved by grace (gift) through faith (not work) in Jesus Christ alone.

A great error that too many Christians make is thinking that justifying faith INCLUDES obedience. They subtly slip obedience into their definition of faith and change the whole meaning of justification. When they do this, they take the traditional Roman Catholic position against Protestantism. This is the central issue over which the Reformation was fought.

This is not hairsplitting about language. It is of the utmost importance! The adding of obedience to salvation undercuts the grace of God in a most profound and serious manner. Why? Because it is God who saves us. He does it supernaturally - by His power and grace. He does it outside of us and our obedience. Our obedience is in response to what He has done. But it does not save us. Christ saves us! It is so simple, yet it seems so hard for many to believe.

Adding obedience to faith makes a person's salvation dependent upon their performance. It makes grace insufficient. It takes away their assurance. It makes justification a reward and not a gift. To protect a denomination’s traditional interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, some teachers make a formula out of salvation. Some give three steps, some four, and I recently saw seven steps to salvation. The Bible says there is one step (if I dare call it that): Trust in Jesus Christ alone as your atoning sacrifice and righteousness before God.

We are not judged or accepted by God because of our performance. Period! We are accepted because of the righteousness of Christ credited to us by faith. This is our source of joy and assurance. GOD has saved me. HE has done it for His glory. I am his child and no one can take that from me. One can say with Paul, "I have all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). That liberty flows out of my heart into my hands and feet. It leads me to glorify and serve Christ with joy for Who He is and who I am in Him. I do not count the points at the end of the day and find out how much He loves me or how saved I am. I am justified when I wake up, all day long, when I lie down and while I sleep. Why? Because I trust in Him alone. I ‘work’ as a Christian to glorify the One who has so marvelously saved and kept me. He is my peace! He is my joy! I am complete in Him (Col. 2:10). He is my righteousness! I take His burden, and it is light.

True faith exceeds that of the demons. How? Through the gift of the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to us! We do not believe and tremble. We believe and are assured that we are righteous before God through Jesus. THIS IS THE FAITH THAT DEMONS CANNOT HAVE

[DAII]

AUTHENTIC FAITH

First, it is important to understand that James and Paul are talking about two different subjects. If one does not understand this fact, one will constantly misapply the teaching of James. Paul is talking about the justification of the sinner before God, while James is talking about the justification of the faith of the believer before people. This is a very important distinction and is the key to resolving what appears to be a conflict between Paul and James. Paul deals with justification before God. James addresses justification before people. In other words, James asks his readers, "How do we as people know when faith is authentic?" This is the question most important to James.

Paul, in Romans and Galatians, talks about how we are right with God through faith in the work of Jesus alone. Our work, whatever fashion or form it takes, is insufficient to make us acceptable to God. On the other hand, James is talking about the person who says they have "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" (James 2:1 ), but does not live a "justified" life. In other words, their works do not show the world that they have true justifying faith.

James talks of Abraham being "justified by works," but we must pay close attention to the subject of his book or we will think he is contradicting Paul. He is not. He is saying that Abraham's works justified his faith - not his soul before God. Abraham’s faith was justified before men by his works. James chooses to use a definition of the word justify (dikaio) which is "to show to be right." This is one root meaning of the word. Abraham’s works "showed him to be right" with God. This makes sense when one takes note of the time when each "justification" occurred.

Notice that James speaks of the time when Abraham offered Isaac (Genesis 22). This is close to thirty years (and some say possibly 50 years) after Abraham was counted righteous by faith (Genesis 15:6). Abraham was said to be counted righteous by faith by the writer of Genesis in chapter fifteen. Does James contradict this by saying he was not truly justified until Genesis twenty two? No. James is not talking about the same event as that which Paul cites in Romans four.

Genesis fifteen and Paul in Romans four speak of the time when God justified the person of Abraham. James speaks of when Abraham proves this justification is true by the sacrificing of Isaac (by faith). What James says is that God approved Abraham’s faith through the offering of Isaac. He does not mean that God saved him because he offered Isaac. A careful reading of Romans four makes this very plain.

James tells us a marvelous message of hope and assurance. God’s Word of justification in Genesis fifteen was sure enough to last Abraham 30-50 years. It was not "cheap grace." The justification endured. Also, James teaches us that God declares us righteous based on His sovereignty. When God justifies, it lasts. It is not an unstable, up and down, life of faith. It affects the heart of a person deeply, moving them to live a life of joyful obedience and unreserved consecration. This is not to be saved. But, it is because of the salvation one has received.

[RevDWW]

Read again slowly DWW ... we've had this conversation ... its say the works are justified through these good deeds ... keeping in mind the context was giving to the poor ... most importantly James never said ... not that we are justified by works in regards to our standing before God and salvation ... but that faith will effectuate good works ... He knows his bible.

You're stating the obvious .... again ... but looking to justify your paradigm.

James is speaking of salvation in his example of Abraham and Rahab isn't he. The promised son Issac, would have never been received if Abraham and Sara would not have acted in Faith by having sexual relations to produce the son. No matter how much they believed that still had to physically act on that belief.

Rahab had the promise of salvation from the hand of the Israelite army when they conquered Jericho. She could have believed it in her heart that she and all in her house would be saved but had she not acted on her belief and place the scarlet cord from her window she would have been slain just like the rest of those in the city.


I believe and do so I am justified........:razz

:ursofunny

[DAII]

James is speaking of salvation in his example of Abraham and Rahab isn't he. The promised son Issac, would have never been received if Abraham and Sara would not have acted in Faith by having sexual relations to produce the son. No matter how much they believed that still had to physically act on that belief.

Rahab had the promise of salvation from the hand of the Israelite army when they conquered Jericho. She could have believed it in her heart that she and all in her house would be saved but had she not acted on her belief and place the scarlet cord from her window she would have been slain just like the rest of those in the city.


I believe and do so I am justified........:razz

:ursofunny

Context and decoding still allude you ... the example was Abraham sacrificing his son ... some fifty years after God counted him has righteous.

Lawd, have mercy ... DWW ... love ya bro but you're still hooked on religion.

[RevDWW]

Context and decoding still allude you ... the example was Abraham sacrificing his son ... some fifty years after God counted him has righteous.

Lawd, have mercy ... DWW ... love ya bro but you're still hooked on religion.


And you've become unhooked........or is that unhinged......:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursof unny

[BroGary]

Stand firm bro in your extrabiblical religious traditions ... and be prepared to greet untold millions of believers who obeyed the Gospel by trusting in Christ when we get to heaven ...

We love and appreciate you even if the Truth alludes you ... even if you would add to the Gospel and Christ's conversation with Nicodemus about being born from above ....

Sorry bro, but it is you who are in serious error.

What are you going to say to any who don't make it because of your error when they say to you - "you told me I didn't have to be baptized in JESUS name and that I did not have to receive the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of tongues"

No offense intended bro, we love you too, but it is you who have erred from the way.

[Barb]

"repent" does infer more than "just" being sorry but also infers action in making a change in the direction of one's life.

from the merriam-webster.com dictionary:

"1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life"

Someone we know who spent time in England while in the military noticed that when the Brittish soldiers were marching in formation and the drill instructer wanted them to go in the opposition direction they would give the command "REPENT !", which they understood meant to do an 180 degree turn and go in the opposite direction.

the word "converted" from merriam-webster.com includes:

"1 a : to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another"

So it would seem to repent and be converted would mean to be sorry enough for your sins that you take action in making a change in your life's direction from a life of sin, and also change (convert) your belief from how you used to believe to the gospel truth, and of course if you really believe the truth you will also obey the truth and be baptized in Jesus name and seek to receive the Holy Ghost.
Bro. Gary, you and I share the same doctrinal belief as pertains to salvation, but I must agree with Dan on this point...oh, what is this world coming to?!

But, alas, tis true. Using the dictionary to support a view rather than Strong's doesn't ring as an accurate response, IMHO.

[RevDWW]

Bro. Gary, you and I share the same doctrinal belief as pertains to salvation, but I must agree with Dan on this point...oh, what is this world coming to?!

But, alas, tis true. Using the dictionary to support a view rather than Strong's doesn't ring as an accurate response, IMHO.

Repent:

Strongs
G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.


Thayers

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3326 and G3539
Citing in TDNT: 4:975, 636

[BroGary]

Bro. Gary, you and I share the same doctrinal belief as pertains to salvation, but I must agree with Dan on this point...oh, what is this world coming to?!

But, alas, tis true. Using the dictionary to support a view rather than Strong's doesn't ring as an accurate response, IMHO.

no offense intended at all sis, but even one of the definitions he posted inferred more than merely feeling sorrow, but taking action -

"heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins"

(and as I mentioned, repent is used as a military command to go in the opposite direction :-)

Anyhow, at least we agree it takes obedience to what Peter preached in Acts 2:38 to become born again :-)

[Barb]

no offense intended at all sis, but even one of the definitions he posted inferred more than merely feeling sorrow, but taking action -

"heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins"

(and as I mentioned, repent is used as a military command to go in the opposite direction :-)

Anyhow, at least we agree it takes obedience to what Peter preached in Acts 2:38 to become born again :-)

No offense taken, and I stand corrected according to your evidence...

However, I must be a dunce because it doesn't make sense to me. If they are not separate acts, repentance and conversion, why did Peter say, "AND be converted."

I am not as scholarly as some of the rest here, but do know that kai has several meanings...and, which is, also.

It reading the Scripture, it would appear that 'and' is what fits, SO...can someone brighter than this sister explain it?

We cannot base theology on experience alone, but I can tell you that I have seen people whom I know personally to repent...truly repent with godly sorrow, again and again.

But for whatever reason, that is as far as it goes. They don't ever seem to go any farther in God than being sorry.

Some have said that they never FULLY repented, whatever that means. However, the people of whom I speak are backsliders, who upon repentance, spoke in tongues with joy.

IMO, they were never converted. Though brought to a place of regret and sorrow, they never turned and made a change.

It was a momentary heart change, but not a life change.

Please explain this so a 2 year old can understand it...

[RevDWW]

No offense taken, and I stand corrected according to your evidence...

However, I must be a dunce because it doesn't make sense to me. If they are not separate acts, repentance and conversion, why did Peter say, "AND be converted."

I am not as scholarly as some of the rest here, but do know that kai has several meanings...and, which is, also.

It reading the Scripture, it would appear that 'and' is what fits, SO...can someone brighter than this sister explain it?

We cannot base theology on experience alone, but I can tell you that I have seen people whom I know personally to repent...truly repent with godly sorrow, again and again.

But for whatever reason, that is as far as it goes. They don't ever seem to go any farther in God than being sorry.

Some have said that they never FULLY repented, whatever that means. However, the people of whom I speak are backsliders, who upon repentance, spoke in tongues with joy.

IMO, they were never converted. Though brought to a place of regret and sorrow, they never turned and made a change.

It was a momentary heart change, but not a life change.

Please explain this so a 2 year old can understand it...


Change of mind produces change of action. If the change of mind is just a temporary change the actions will only change temporally.

This could be why we need to have the mind of Christ.

The Word does say that as a man thinks in his heart so is he. Perhaps those that do not full commit to a changed life do not believe they can or that they are not worthy or.........

[BroGary]

No offense taken, and I stand corrected according to your evidence...

However, I must be a dunce because it doesn't make sense to me. If they are not separate acts, repentance and conversion, why did Peter say, "AND be converted."

I am not as scholarly as some of the rest here, but do know that kai has several meanings...and, which is, also.

It reading the Scripture, it would appear that 'and' is what fits, SO...can someone brighter than this sister explain it?

We cannot base theology on experience alone, but I can tell you that I have seen people whom I know personally to repent...truly repent with godly sorrow, again and again.

But for whatever reason, that is as far as it goes. They don't ever seem to go any farther in God than being sorry.

Some have said that they never FULLY repented, whatever that means. However, the people of whom I speak are backsliders, who upon repentance, spoke in tongues with joy.

IMO, they were never converted. Though brought to a place of regret and sorrow, they never turned and made a change.

It was a momentary heart change, but not a life change.

Please explain this so a 2 year old can understand it...

Hey sis, hope this helps clarify what I am trying to convey, sometimes in my mind I know what I am trying to say but have to think of how to communicate it effectively :-)

As far as the difference between repent and converted, repentance would cover the part where the person feels sorry enough for their sins to amend how they live.

Converted would cover them actually changing their religious views from what they used to believe to believing the gospel truth.

the word "converted" from merriam-webster.com includes:

"1 a : to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another"

People in the world who just repent without converting would be like when someone just "turns over a new leaf" so to speak. There are people in the world that reach a point in their lives where they regret how they lived enough to make a change (stop drinking and/or drugs, ect.) but without actually converting (changing their religious belief to the gospel truth).

Perhaps the apostle wanted to be sure they realized that just "turning over a new leaf" was not enough, they had to also convert their belief to the gospel truth and obey it.

[RevDWW]

It's seem Peter is saying to change your heart and mind (repent) and then change your direction(convert).

Belief and action!

[Barb]

Change of mind produces change of action. If the change of mind is just a temporary change the actions will only change temporally.

This could be why we need to have the mind of Christ.

The Word does say that as a man thinks in his heart so is he. Perhaps those that do not full commit to a changed life do not believe they can or that they are not worthy or.........

Hey sis, hope this helps clarify what I am trying to convey, sometimes in my mind I know what I am trying to say but have to think of how to communicate it effectively :-)

As far as the difference between repent and converted, repentance would cover the part where the person feels sorry enough for their sins to amend how they live.

Converted would cover them actually changing their religious views from what they used to believe to believing the gospel truth.

the word "converted" from merriam-webster.com includes:

"1 a : to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another"

People in the world who just repent without converting would be like when someone just "turns over a new leaf" so to speak. There are people in the world that reach a point in their lives where they regret how they lived enough to make a change (stop drinking and/or drugs, ect.) but without actually converting (changing their religious belief to the gospel truth).

Perhaps the apostle wanted to be sure they realized that just "turning over a new leaf" was not enough, they had to also convert their belief to the gospel truth and obey it.

It's seem Peter is saying to change your heart and mind (repent) and then change your direction(convert).

Belief and action!
Then we are all saying the same thing...?

Good! Thanks, guys... :thumbsup

[BroGary]

Then we are all saying the same thing...?

Good! Thanks, guys... :thumbsup

No problem, and not trying to start a fuss, but..... :-)

.....something interesting to also consider that I didn't think of before is that Jesus near the end of His earthly ministry told Peter "when thou art converted" so it seems that Jesus did not consider Peter "converted" at that time, even though I'm sure Peter had repented and was likely baptised unto repentence by John's baptism. After Jesus resurrected He opened the disciples understanding of the scriptures, and that's when I believed they fully understood what salvation would require starting on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was first poured out and Peter could explain what people had to do in Acts 2:38.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

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

[Michael The Disciple]

Dan said:

We are not judged or accepted by God because of our performance. Period! We are accepted because of the righteousness of Christ credited to us by faith. This is our source of joy and assurance. GOD has saved me. HE has done it for His glory. I am his child and no one can take that from me.

This seems far removed from this:

[1] And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
[2] Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
[3] Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
[4] Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
[5] He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Rev. 3:1-5

Here Yeshua teaches us if our works are not perfect he will blot our names out of his book. What we do matters.

[Jason B]

If you don't mind I would like to use this portion of your post to say something...

I had mentioned before that if our paradigm is that one has not received the Holy Ghost until they have spoken in tongues then this will be what we recall because each person who did not speak in tongues is deemed to have not received the Holy Ghost. It is a self fulfilling teaching.

But my thought is this. I have seen people go to the altar... mean people... hateful people... terribly sinful people.

I have seen them "receive a blessing" at the altar crying and repenting before God.
I have seen people get up from that altar changed.
I have seen an attitude in them and on their faces I had never seen before.
I have seen a grumpy and hateful person all of a sudden become a happy and loving person.
I have seen a person who smoked and drank and could never give it up quit that night.

But they didn't speak in tongues.

And people congratulated them on their "blessing" and told them... you keep praying and God will fill you with the Holy Ghost. They were dismayed at this because they thought they DID receive the Holy Ghost.

Oh no... they are told. You received a blessing but when you receive the Holy Ghost you will speak in tongues and it will be so much better than what you received tonight.

I have seen them try to receive this Holy Ghost and finally quit from such deep discouragement that they couldn't receive the Holy Ghost and when they attended for the last time the record still stood... nobody ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I saw lots of signs... some even biblically explicit.

I saw love one to another.
I saw a miraculous ability to quit things that had held them captive for years.
I saw a change in spirit, attitude and nature.
I saw someone who was not the same as they used to be.
I saw someone who had received power after that this "blessing" had come upon them.

But since no one saw tongues doubt was planted in their heart and it destroyed them.
But... at the end of the day... it can still be said by those who are so fond of saying it... In all my years of living for God no one has ever received the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

I think we really need to take another look at this doctrine.
Exactly. Which is why this doctrine not only needs to be exposed, but taught AGAINST.

3 steppers are fond of teaching about how damnable it is to teach people they are saved simply by "accepting the Lord", yet their doctrine does for the saint, what easy believism does for the sinner. The end result is both have been lied to.

[Jason B]

Amen, and some may say people have had a change in their lives without speaking in tongues, but even people who start following a false religion, even Islam, can have a change in their life and stop drinking, ect., so just having a change is not evidence enough, God has a specific initial evidence that would leave no doubt. Repentence brings a change, but repentence alone will not save anyone, they must also be born of the water and the Spirit.

It is like unto when a baby is conceived and is like when the seed of the Word is germinated by faith, but the actual birth is deemed successful when you hear the initial evidence of the new born baby crying, likewise we know a new "babe in Christ" is born of the Spirit when we hear them joyfully "crying" out in tongues :-)

Bologna

the evidence isn't "crying" in tongues, the evidence is the fruit of the Spirit. MAybe only my Bible says "you shall know them by their fruits."????

[Jason B]

And we are to go on emotional experiences of people instead of standing on what the Word of God is saying? I'm not willing to do that.
that is exactly what you're doing PO

You are basing doctrine on your EXPERIENCE.

It is all about the heart which is spoken of in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 - likening our lives/heart to those of the wayside, stony places, thorns, and good ground. Only God knows, at the end of the day, as some water, some plant, but God gives the increase. That could take years.

The Word of God still stands in the midst of this. I'm not going to interpret the Word of God on the experiences of various people, unless, that experience can be found to line up with the Word of God.

PO, out of curiousity, what is your favorite church HYMN?

[Jason B]

Zen Apostolicism.

:ursofunny

DA you haven't copyrighted this term yet have you?

[BroGary]

Exactly. Which is why this doctrine not only needs to be exposed, but taught AGAINST.

3 steppers are fond of teaching about how damnable it is to teach people they are saved simply by "accepting the Lord", yet their doctrine does for the saint, what easy believism does for the sinner. The end result is both have been lied to.

What are you going to say to those who don't make it IF because of your influence they don't get the Holy Ghost and they say why did you tell me that it wasn't necessary to speak in tongues as the initial evidence ?

[BroGary]

Bologna

the evidence isn't "crying" in tongues, the evidence is the fruit of the Spirit. MAybe only my Bible says "you shall know them by their fruits."????

Sorry but anyone can show some fruit of good behaviour without the Holy Ghost, that is why God choose to have tongues as the initial evidence.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Acts 10:45,46 ....was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues....

Isaiah 28:11,12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

[Jason B]

Many years ago, a young mother and friend came to church with me. She had two small children and was divorced. As she continued to come to church, she eventually went to the alter and later wanted to be baptized. My late father baptized her in Jesus Name. My mother and I went with her to the room where she was to prepare to be baptized. After being baptized, we returned to the room so she could change into dry clothing. Mom and I kept praying and she also. All of a sudden she got a good blessing and began to shout. She definitely was feeling good. She announced she received the Holy Ghost. Although she received a good blessing, there was no evidence that she had spoken in tongues. Mom and I both noted that!

This precious lady immediately started wearing dresses, no make-up, jewelry, etc. Sold her TV. No one told her to do these things. She did them on her own. She was not mature spiritually to understand why she was doing this. She was just doing/trying to pattern after others. Some people do things because others do them. Some people do things because they feel it is the right thing to do. Others do things because of who they are.

I took her and her children with me to campmeeting. Paid all her expenses. As we were nearing our city coming home, she cried and said, "I just wish I could stay there from now on. It's like another world at campmeeting." We can go somewhere for a great family, etc., gathering and be sad when we have to leave. But we still live in this world. WE'RE NOT HOME YET!

She continued to come to church with her children, then got a new job with the local police department. She started missing church and then quit alto gether. One day I saw her, in her uniform, heavy make-up, etc. I saw her later at the super-
market. She said she was happy. Eventually she went to work for the county sheriff's department and I seldom saw her. Then she moved to the county seat, continuing to work for the sheriff's department.

Her children grew up and the daughter married a catholic boy. Her son went to a Baptist Bible school. She asked the local Baptist minister to give a recommendation for the school. He did so. (she had been raised Baptist). Years later I ran into him at an outlet mall where he worked. He started telling me he was ordained as a Baptist minister. Started telling me about what was wrong with our faith.

Later I made contact with her, and two of our daughters and I met in her city for lunch. Her two children (grown now) were there too. The daughter with her husband and baby. The mother expressed to me that she was concerned that her grandbaby would be raised catholic. We had a pleasant time and took pictures, etc. We have prayed for her and her family all these years. Her son can be found in the gay parades. Very actively involved in the gay movement. My late father used to say, "There are alternatives to obeying TRUTH"!

I wonder how many, through the years, even in Pentecost, received a blessing at the entrance of the Kingdom, but did not press on into the kingdom. Perhaps similiar to a child being born. Some get to the entrance of the womb/tomb, and give up. I've seen people that appeared to be well on their way to receiving the Holy Ghost and suddenly give up. Quit and refuse to go any farther. I believe we cheat ourselves when we do not press on until we have the joy and the evidence that we have truly been born again, of water and of the Spirit.

Not long ago I once again connected with this lady AND her two children, via Facebook. I pray that one day she will realize that a onetime blessing is not sufficient for a lifetime! Eternity??

Could we compare the Holy Ghost as the down payment/earnest money,put in escrow, until the full purchace is completed at the appointed time of the closing. The evidence of things not seen yet, but by faith we wait for it. After the "CLOSING", we are given full possession.

Falla39
:pullhair

FEAR TACTICS!!!!!!!

IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, YOU FAMILY WILL FALL APART, YOU KIDS WILL END UP GAY, AND YOU'LL BE DAMNED!!!!!

What about the people who serve the Lord for years and never speak in tonuges?

Who reach the world for Christ, who give their live in missionary work, converts from Islam who are killed by their family members, yet they are faithful to Christ to the death.

WE SEEK FOR SCRIPTURAL DEBATE, AND ALL WE GET IS "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT LIKE US YOUR LIFE WILL BE DESTROYED AND YOU'LL END UP IN HELL."

Enough.

What saith the scripture? Thats the only thing I concerned about.

[Jason B]

Sorry but anyone can show some fruit of good behaviour without the Holy Ghost, that is why God choose to have tongues as the initial evidence.

So how do you explain those who DO SPEAK WITH TONGUES, yet are hateful, gossiping, have no self control, are unhappy, and yield pratically NO fruit of the Spirit, that is unless you count things as fruit that the Bible doesn't, such as tongues, dress codes, and the such like. None of those things are fruit in the Biblical sense, those many pulpits have attempted to classify them as such.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
If speaking in tongues is absolutely required of ALL believers, so is casting out devils.

Furthermore, you stopped a verse too soon. If casting out devils is literal, and tongues is literal (as we would agree), and if tongues is for EVERY BELIEVER WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then so would also be drinking deadly poison and taking up snakes. IF we're going for ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANTY, using your hermunetic, I would say the Snake Handlers have more to boast about.

Acts 10:45,46 ....was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues....
Again, you're not quoting the whole verse, I'll help you out it concludes "and magnify God."

They spoke in tongues yes, but they obviously spoke something intelligable to someone. Tongues isn't repeating sounds, nor unknown languages, but rather supernaturally bestowed UNLEARNED languages. Tongues is ALWAYS an actual language.


Isaiah 28:11,12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

I've known many who supposedly reached the stage of "stammering lips" but didn't speak in tongues, therefore didn't get the Holy Ghost. TONGUES isn't the rest, belief IS (Hebrews 4).

[Jason B]

What are you going to say to those who don't make it IF because of your influence they don't get the Holy Ghost and they say why did you tell me that it wasn't necessary to speak in tongues as the initial evidence ?

I don't discourage people against speaking in tongues, but I don't tell them their lost if they haven't. I encourage people to truly repent, deny themselves, take up their cross, and live holy. To continue in growth, not to remain babes in Christ, and that discipleship has a cost, and that anyone who trades on God's grace thinking the blood of Jesus is so that they continue on in their sins will suffer a horrible fate (Hebrews 10:26-30).

I encourage people to get every blessing that God has available to them, and to live the Christian life to the fullest. I do not encourage easy believism or cheap grace. If someone puts into action the things I teach, they will certainly speak in tongues if its Gods will. Its not his will that any should perish, and He who asks for a fish he will not give a serpant. I encourage people to repent, and to ask God for his Spirit. If they truly repent, and ask God for His Spirit, yet they don't speak in tongues, do you still think they will go to hell?

[Jason B]

Sorry, but you can't simply ignore all the other verses that show that just believing and repentence alone is not enough to make Heaven.

As I mentioned in another discussion:

The Bible is clear that salvation takes more than JUST believing.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Other scriptures show repentance is a MUST.
Other scriptures show receiving the Holy Ghost is a MUST.
Other scriptures show enduring faithful to the end is a MUST.

IF a person JUST believes, but does not also repent, get baptized in Jesus name, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure faithful to the end, they will not be saved.

Let's stick with your theme:

Other scriptures show Communion is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Foot Washing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Child Bearing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Tithing is a MUST.

[Hoovie]

:pullhair

FEAR TACTICS!!!!!!!

IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, YOU FAMILY WILL FALL APART, YOU KIDS WILL END UP GAY, AND YOU'LL BE DAMNED!!!!!

What about the people who serve the Lord for years and never speak in tonuges?

Who reach the world for Christ, who give their live in missionary work, converts from Islam who are killed by their family members, yet they are faithful to Christ to the death.

WE SEEK FOR SCRIPTURAL DEBATE, AND ALL WE GET IS "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT LIKE US YOUR LIFE WILL BE DESTROYED AND YOU'LL END UP IN HELL."

Enough.

What saith the scripture? Thats the only thing I concerned about.

Exactly Jason. These questions must be dealt with. If we are going to bring stories of horror and blessings into the picture then we must also address the Paul Washers of this world. They aren't Oneness Pentecostal, but does anyone dare say they are not in the body of Christ???

[BroGary]

So how do you explain those who DO SPEAK WITH TONGUES, yet are hateful, gossiping, have no self control, are unhappy, and yield pratically NO fruit of the Spirit, that is unless you count things as fruit that the Bible doesn't, such as tongues, dress codes, and the such like. None of those things are fruit in the Biblical sense, those many pulpits have attempted to classify them as such.

If speaking in tongues is absolutely required of ALL believers, so is casting out devils.

Furthermore, you stopped a verse too soon. If casting out devils is literal, and tongues is literal (as we would agree), and if tongues is for EVERY BELIEVER WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then so would also be drinking deadly poison and taking up snakes. IF we're going for ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANTY, using your hermunetic, I would say the Snake Handlers have more to boast about.

Again, you're not quoting the whole verse, I'll help you out it concludes "and magnify God."

They spoke in tongues yes, but they obviously spoke something intelligable to someone. Tongues isn't repeating sounds, nor unknown languages, but rather supernaturally bestowed UNLEARNED languages. Tongues is ALWAYS an actual language.


Isaiah 28:11,12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.[/QUOTE]

I've known many who supposedly reached the stage of "stammering lips" but didn't speak in tongues, therefore didn't get the Holy Ghost. TONGUES isn't the rest, belief IS (Hebrews 4).[/QUOTE]

Your arguements are invalid and simply do not negate that tongues are the initial evidence. You might not bother to read this, but this makes it pretty clear:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp

Why do people resist what God wants (and requires) them to have ?

Isaiah 28:12 To whom he said, This [is] the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

[BroGary]

Exactly Jason. These questions must be dealt with. If we are going to bring stories of horror and blessings into the picture then we must also address the Paul Washers of this world. They aren't Oneness Pentecostal, but does anyone dare say they are not in the body of Christ???

Correct doctrine IS very important.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[Jason B]

Your arguements are invalid and simply do not negate that tongues are the initial evidence. You might not bother to read this, but this makes it pretty clear:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp


My arguments are invalid and all you are offering in response is a tract?

As for reading it, I not only have read it, but own it, it is in my files in my study. I not only have read it, but used its arguments in the past in FAVOR of the initial evidence doctrine. I'm familiar with the tract, all of which does nothing to invalidate my arguments.

Why do people resist what God wants (and requires) them to have ?
Good question. Why do you resist the scriptures which teach salvation is not by works, but by grace, and that we are justified by faith.

Furthermore, what makes you think I have resisted what God wants?

[Jason B]

Correct doctrine IS very important.

So how do you define correct doctrine? With a tract? There is a real lack of scriptural exegesis on this thread an a hundred more like it on AFF in which folks come on with guns blazing claiming if you haven't spoken in tongues, you're not saved. Yet very few have offered much of a scriptural argument, and when they do offer scripture, it is easily rebutted with a more solid hermunetic, and then NOT replied to. (ex. my response to your quoting of Mark 16:17, and your following silence)


1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


Strange you quote Paul, and yet dispute his writings in Romans. :hmmm

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
How do you worship God in Spirit? By running around, by shouting, by speaking in tongues?

What about in TRUTH? By teaching things that are such hidden truth that they are not even in the Bible? Such as the list of MUSTS that you did not yet reply to.

Elementary [Context], my dear Watson, elementary [context].

[BroGary]

So how do you define correct doctrine? With a tract? There is a real lack of scriptural exegesis on this thread an a hundred more like it on AFF in which folks come on with guns blazing claiming if you haven't spoken in tongues, you're not saved. Yet very few have offered much of a scriptural argument, and when they do offer scripture, it is easily rebutted with a more solid hermunetic, and then NOT replied to. (ex. my response to your quoting of Mark 16:17, and your following silence)

Strange you quote Paul, and yet dispute his writings in Romans. :hmmm

How do you worship God in Spirit? By running around, by shouting, by speaking in tongues?

What about in TRUTH? By teaching things that are such hidden truth that they are not even in the Bible? Such as the list of MUSTS that you did not yet reply to.

Elemntary [Context], my dear Watson, elementary [context].

Sorry, but you are just so very wrong, and if you lead people to believe that obeying Acts 2:38 is not a must, then you are risking the eternity of precious souls.

You seem like you are stubbornly bound in your error, so why should I repeat in detail to you the same basic things I have wrote in past discussions when you seem determined to stay in your error.

Anyone who is truely open and hungry for truth and will look at what ALL the scriptures saying conerning salvation they will indeed see that believing, repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are ALL an absolute MUST :-)

[Jack Shephard]

Exactly Jason. These questions must be dealt with. If we are going to bring stories of horror and blessings into the picture then we must also address the Paul Washers of this world. They aren't Oneness Pentecostal, but does anyone dare say they are not in the body of Christ???

I agree, 100%. People like Paul Washer is a blessing to the body of Christ. It is too bad that people like him will never be able grace our churches doors. I am sure that some of our preachers might listen to people like him and others and recycle their messages.

[Jack Shephard]

Sorry, but you are just so very wrong, and if you lead people to believe that obeying Acts 2:38 is not a must, then you are risking the eternity of precious souls.

You seem like you are stubbornly bound in your error, so why should I repeat in detail to you the same basic things I have wrote in past discussions when you seem determined to stay in your error.

Anyone who is truely open and hungry for truth and will look at what ALL the scriptures saying conerning salvation they will indeed see that believing, repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are ALL an absolute MUST :-)

....or not.

[Jack Shephard]

Correct doctrine IS very important.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

You are right, but it seems that Dogma has become more important than doctrine.

[Hoovie]

I agree, 100%. People like Paul Washer is a blessing to the body of Christ. It is too bad that people like him will never be able grace our churches doors. I am sure that some of our preachers might listen to people like him and others and recycle their messages.

Yeah.

I don't mind so much that we won't let him preach in our churches. I do understand how strong doctrinal division and our traditions can be - on both sides of denominational barriers.

HOWEVER, when someone claims all others cannot enter heaven without first satisfying THEM and THEIR methodologies, I fear they are very much deceived.

[Falla39]

:pullhair

FEAR TACTICS!!!!!!!

IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, YOU FAMILY WILL FALL APART, YOU KIDS WILL END UP GAY, AND YOU'LL BE DAMNED!!!!!

What about the people who serve the Lord for years and never speak in tonuges?

Who reach the world for Christ, who give their live in missionary work, converts from Islam who are killed by their family members, yet they are faithful to Christ to the death.

WE SEEK FOR SCRIPTURAL DEBATE, AND ALL WE GET IS "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT LIKE US YOUR LIFE WILL BE DESTROYED AND YOU'LL END UP IN HELL."

Enough.

What saith the scripture? Thats the only thing I concerned about.

Jason,
I am in no way trying to use "fear tactics" by telling true experiences that
I was a witness of.
And you can say bologne all you want to. But when those precious little
"sprouts" growing up around you (tree), get older, you will witnesss the
fruit that came from your tree. The branches that have sprung from your
"tree" will bear witness of what kind of tree it was. It takes time for little
sprouts to grow up and bear fruit. It's easy to spout off on here and I am
sure you are a lot younger, but I know from experience and from the Word
of God what I am speaking of. Just give it time. Time will show how wise or
unwise you really are/were.
The first evidence of a newborn being alive is it's cry. The fruit will come
later. Fruit don't come from a newborn, naturally or spiritually. That takes
time. How are you going to know in the meantime. The fruit doesn't fall far
from the tree. You're the tree that should be bearing fruit. Love, joy, peace,
etc., The words (seed) coming from within, can pretty well tell what kind of
tree it is.
I don't say this disrespectfully nor have any desire to be rude.

Falla39

[Jason B]

Jason,
I am in no way trying to use "fear tactics" by telling true experiences that
I was a witness of.
And you can say bologne all you want to. But when those precious little
"sprouts" growing up around you (tree), get older, you will witnesss the
fruit that came from your tree. The branches that have sprung from your
"tree" will bear witness of what kind of tree it was. It takes time for little
sprouts to grow up and bear fruit. It's easy to spout off on here and I am
sure you are a lot younger, but I know from experience and from the Word
of God what I am speaking of. Just give it time. Time will show how wise or
unwise you really are/were.
The first evidence of a newborn being alive is it's cry. The fruit will come
later. Fruit don't come from a newborn, naturally or spiritually. That takes
tims. How are you going to know in the meantime. The fruit doesn't fall far
from the tree. You're the tree that should be bearing fruit. Love, joy, peace,
etc., The words (seed) coming from within, can pretty well tell what kind of
tree it is.
I don't say this disrespectfully nor have any desire to be rude.

Falla39

Sis Falla,

Thank you for your posts. There is no doubt that one reaps what they sow, which is why I cannot put the emphasis on getting my kids to speak in tongues, but rather on repentance, loving God, loving their neighbor, teaching them about the TRUE fruit of the Spirit,the principles taught in the Sermon on the Mount, and what God truly requires of us.

Please allow me to also add that in this thread as well as a similar one that was started about a month ago your stated position has much to do with experience, but is lacking in the Word of God.

Shall I speak of what I have seen pentecostal doctrine do to some? I have seen people so meesed up over standards it literally tore their families apart. So concerned with straining out gnats, while swallowing camels that their "converts" became discouraged by the rules required to serve God, and have now ended up in homosexuality (despite speaking in tongues quite often). I have see those who spoke in tongues, never missed church, and flaunted their "holiness" while telling others they didn't know how to "worship", and yet such people were comitting fornication AND adultery, pregnant out of wedlock, backbiters, gossips, and all sort of evil works. Many, MANY people I have known in our churches fall quite short of the spiritual fruit the Bible speaks of, while lining up to all of the requirements that a UPC minded church puts on them. No doubt you would at least know some of the pastors I speak of, if not the "saints" themselves, seeing as how I was in section 7 of the Texas district UPC, right there close by yourself. Even now I attend church in a [former] UPC in Arlington.

If the tongues truly is the ONE and ONLY evidence of the Holy Ghost, then why do so many who have spoken in tongues live such damnable lives, while so many "dead and dry" denominal Christians are faithful and serving to God all their lives?

Blessings

[BroGary]

Just for the record, I hold no hard feelings towards those who disagree, this is not personal, but I must stand steadfast for what I know to be the truth.

Easy-believism will not save anyone, Peter believed in Jesus and I'm sure lived a life of repentence, but Jesus did not considered him "converted" at the point in time he told him "and when thou art converted" (Luke 22:32) Peter still had yet to obey the same gospel plan he preached on the day of Pentecost when the Church was first born.

http://www.upcbaypoint.com/Articles/more-than-easy-believism.html

[geekette]

Let me throw a monkey wrench into all of this discussion.

I spoke in tongues beginning in 1977 and for decades afterwards. I should note that I spoke in tongues for months before my parents would allow me to be baptized in Jesus' Name. (As for repentance, I think I have a much clearer and keener idea of what it means now, but I'm also acutely aware that depending on the beliefs, some things that Group A considers to be sinful are not considered so by Group B.)

These days, I consider myself very much on the outside. Depending on the day, I vacillate between agnosticism and atheism. But I can tell you that as I was making my journey out of Christianity and doubting day in and day out, I could still speak in tongues. And, I daresay, I still can now if I wanted to. (And I did, just now, to see if I still could. And I don't plan on doing so again any time soon because I don't want to offend people on this board.)

I am certain that there are people in churches who do not actually believe, but you'd think do from the fact that they're speaking and shouting in tongues at every church service. I am certain there are unrepentant, sinful tongue speakers in church every Sunday. Maybe even the pillars of your church. Maybe even your pastors.

My point? Just because someone can speak in tongues doesn't mean that they're a believer or saved. Tongues is a lousy marker for belief and salvation.

[Jason B]

Just for the record, I hold no hard feelings towards those who disagree, this is not personal, but I must stand steadfast for what I know to be the truth.

Easy-believism will not save anyone, Peter believed in Jesus and I'm sure lived a life of repentence, but Jesus did not considered him "converted" at the point in time he told him "and when thou art converted" (Luke 22:32) Peter still had yet to obey the same gospel plan he preached on the day of Pentecost when the Church was first born.



When was Peter baptized in Jesus name?

[faithit166]

after he recieved the holy ghost,many many people have recieved the holy ghost before being baptized in jesus name,but just because you recieve the holy ghost does not mean you dont have to be baptized in his name.you cant obey the gospel and leave one or the other out,you have repentance ,baptism in jesus name,infilling of the holy ghost-death burial resurrection when something dies you bury it or it will start stinkin once it dies and is buried it can be ressurected yes tongues are a sign one has been filled but later we tell a tree by its fruit

[Jason B]

Let me throw a monkey wrench into all of this discussion.

I spoke in tongues beginning in 1977 and for decades afterwards. I should note that I spoke in tongues for months before my parents would allow me to be baptized in Jesus' Name. (As for repentance, I think I have a much clearer and keener idea of what it means now, but I'm also acutely aware that depending on the beliefs, some things that Group A considers to be sinful are not considered so by Group B.)

These days, I consider myself very much on the outside. Depending on the day, I vacillate between agnosticism and atheism. But I can tell you that as I was making my journey out of Christianity and doubting day in and day out, I could still speak in tongues. And, I daresay, I still can now if I wanted to. (And I did, just now, to see if I still could. And I don't plan on doing so again any time soon because I don't want to offend people on this board.)

I am certain that there are people in churches who do not actually believe, but you'd think do from the fact that they're speaking and shouting in tongues at every church service. I am certain there are unrepentant, sinful tongue speakers in church every Sunday. Maybe even the pillars of your church. Maybe even your pastors.

My point? Just because someone can speak in tongues doesn't mean that they're a believer or saved. Tongues is a lousy marker for belief and salvation.


This saddens me, but also makes my point.

Now can anyone prove that geekette "spoke in tongues" when she posted? No. (despite the familiariaty on AFF, its still the internet)

HOWEVER, the fact is that many "tongue talkers" are creatures of habit. Thats not to say that at one time God didn't genuinely give them a gift of speaking in tongues, but through repitition it has become carnal and not spiritual.

I have heard people pray before service who "spoke in tongues" the same "phrases" over and over, yet if someone walks in the sanctuary, they stop greet them "how you doing brother?" and go right back to "speaking in tongues" until another person comes in.

I've heard preachers who preach and as they get louder "speak in tongues" only to notice it was the same phrases time after time.

Now then, I'm not suggesting these are "fake tongues" but rather seems to be a carnal copy of something that was once genuinely given. As some folks say, the brain simply mimmicks what the body has done over and over again in the spirit, thus eventually taking the spiritual experience out of tongues. And it because something that some people turn on and off like the kitchen sink.


Now whether we take geekettes claims seriously or not, we know that there are those who "speak in tongues" in the flesh, and it is certainly plausible that such a person could continue on doing this long after turning away from the faith.

Yet such person could be gone from church for 10 years, come back one day, "speak in tongues" at the alter and repent, and the "church" would believe God didn't accept that repentance and there was still sin in their life.

But if that same person came back after 10 years, was pressured to go to the alter when they really didn't want to, and "spoke in tongues" through an old habit. People would be rejoicing in their "salvation".

[faithit166]

and you shall know them by their fruit,

[BroGary]

When was Peter baptized in Jesus name?

The Bible does not say when, but it should be obvious Peter did, because since God is no respector of persons we would expect that He would not have required any less of the apostles then what He had Peter preach in Acts 2:38 to the people.

Everything that happened from Jesus's earthly ministry thru the time of the apostles time on earth was not recorded in the Bible, otherwise imagine the size the Bible would have been :-)

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

[Falla39]

Sis Falla,

Thank you for your posts. There is no doubt that one reaps what they sow, which is why I cannot put the emphasis on getting my kids to speak in tongues, but rather on repentance, loving God, loving their neighbor, teaching them about the TRUE fruit of the Spirit,the principles taught in the Sermon on the Mount, and what God truly requires of us.

Please allow me to also add that in this thread as well as a similar one that was started about a month ago your stated position has much to do with experience, but is lacking in the Word of God.

Shall I speak of what I have seen pentecostal doctrine do to some? I have seen people so meesed up over standards it literally tore their families apart. So concerned with straining out gnats, while swallowing camels that their "converts" became discouraged by the rules required to serve God, and have now ended up in homosexuality (despite speaking in tongues quite often). I have see those who spoke in tongues, never missed church, and flaunted their "holiness" while telling others they didn't know how to "worship", and yet such people were comitting fornication AND adultery, pregnant out of wedlock, backbiters, gossips, and all sort of evil works. Many, MANY people I have known in our churches fall quite short of the spiritual fruit the Bible speaks of, while lining up to all of the requirements that a UPC minded church puts on them. No doubt you would at least know some of the pastors I speak of, if not the "saints" themselves, seeing as how I was in section 7 of the Texas district UPC, right there close by yourself. Even now I attend church in a [former] UPC in Arlington.

If the tongues truly is the ONE and ONLY evidence of the Holy Ghost, then why do so many who have spoken in tongues live such damnable lives, while so many "dead and dry" denominal Christians are faithful and serving to God all their lives?

Blessings

In the family alter, in our home growing up, the emphesis was on the Word
of God. Getting the Word inside. As we siblings grew older, the emphesis in-
cluded being born again. Receiving the Holy Ghost. Being born again of water
and Spirit.

Many denominal people read/know the Word and are (as my late paternal
grandmother), walking in all the truth they know. And if they continue on
to know the LORD, HE will bring them into contact with full truth. It may be
through contact with someone else who knows more truth. We are respon-
sible for what we know and have been given.

You may read and quote the Word, but if you have not received the Spirit
of the Living God, you are no different from a Bible reading denominal soul.
In fact, some of those on this forum, sound much like the denominal souls I
have witnessed to, through the years.

Without the illumination of the Holy Ghost, you cannot properly see or under-
stand the Word! I believe there are those who would obey more, if they were
told more. What concerns me is those who have heard, yet speak out
against the very thing that those precious souls need.

I know for a fact that there are denominal ministers that have taught against
what we believe and teach. One even brought in a "watchman" to explain why
we were a "cult". Advertised about it! When my late father left this world, he
was the eldest minister in our city. Highly respected, but the message he
taught and preached, they never accepted.
There was an aged man who "was a member" of a local church, but did not
attend church. He asked my late father if he would preach his funeral. Dad
asked that he come and hear him preach while they were still alive. He never
did. Dad's son, who became pastor after his departure, did preach this busi-
ness man's funeral in the local funeral home. Many liked my late father, but
refused to hear the message he preached.

God never left Himself without witness. Never will. There will be witnesses,
no doubt, in every city, that the message of truth, was preached there.

Jerusalem and Samaria heard the Word. The Gospel has gone around the
world, yet many did not know, as Jerusalem, the day of visitation in their
city. There was a reason Jesus passed by. He's still passing by, in the Spirit,
perhaps IN the forms of humble men and women, bringing the message of
truth to that city. Perhaps just as Dad and Mom, with their eleven children,
over a half century ago, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and
dying city!
No, BIG Jerusalem did not accept Him. He didn't allow His Son to be born in
the big proud city that would reject Him. Tiny Bethlehem, just a few miles
away was where God brought the Gift of His only Begotten Son. Gift-wrapped
in swaddling clothes. Through Him, JOY was brought to a lost and dying world.
Light sprung up and dispeled the darkness! The LIGHT of the world had come!
GOD had VISITED HIS people! Those who heard His Voice, were HIS PEOPLE!

Though many may say, "Lord, Lord", but He said, "Why callest me LORD and
do not the things I say". We may say, "Lord, Lord", yet reject the thngs His
Word declares. But not everyone who saith Lord, Lord, is going to enter into
the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the Holy Ghost. It's not what we
see, or it's not meat and drink! It's righteousness, joy and peace, IN THE
HOLY GHOST!

Still we are having precious souls that have seen that they needed more
when they reached their "wits end". They have come and are continuing to
come and received the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues, as the SPIRIT
gave the utterance. One classmate of my youngest sister, came with her
husband and two small sons many yrs ago. She told me when shse came
back in desperation a couple of yrs ago, that both sets of their parents
fought them over them attending the church my late father founded and
pastored in our city. She comes alone or with another of my youngest
sister's classmates, who also came out of desperation. Both of these class-
mates repented, were baptized in Jesus Name, and received the Holy Ghost,
speaking with tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance. One of their hus-
band's comes on Sun. mornings with her. God is continuing to pour out His
Spirit on many, in spite of those, who say it is not real or necessary. I
know some precious souls who would not agree.

One of the ladies (early 50's) told me after she received the Holy Ghost,
speaking with tongues, as the Spirit gave the utterance, "They just don't
know". They really don't"!
Kinda like the young girl who went to her denominal pastor after visiting
a Pentecostal revival. She was called in and he told her the Holy Spirit
wasn't for today. She replied, "Well, what do I do now that I have it"!

My late father "laid down the "law" in our training up yrs. He brought us
TO Christ. We had to receive Christ (the inheritance) for ourselves. No one
could do that for us. But the earlier teaching of the Word and learning to
obey our parents, learn right principles, helped us be ready to receive the
"born again" experience. I was 18 when I was heavily convicted of my sins.

I had tasted just enough of the world to know I would never be happy out
there. I received the Spirit and spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave the utter-
ance. My brother just younger than myself by 17 months, received it the
same night.

My late father and mother literally prayed and fasted us through to the born
again experience. How I thank God for those godly examples and influences
in our earlier yrs. Although godly examples were modeled before us, the Spirit
must lead and guide us into all truth.

Parents are the first teachers of their children, or should be. I know many
have left the responsibility to others. Our parents did not allow others to
"raise" their children. The UPC did not raise us. Today I depend on the Spirit
I received over 50 yrs ago to continue to lead and guide me. Time will tell
who led us. I want JESUS to lead me by HIS SPIRIT, all the way HOME,
in Jesus Name!

Falla39

[Falla39]

Let me throw a monkey wrench into all of this discussion.

I spoke in tongues beginning in 1977 and for decades afterwards. I should note that I spoke in tongues for months before my parents would allow me to be baptized in Jesus' Name. (As for repentance, I think I have a much clearer and keener idea of what it means now, but I'm also acutely aware that depending on the beliefs, some things that Group A considers to be sinful are not considered so by Group B.)

These days, I consider myself very much on the outside. Depending on the day, I vacillate between agnosticism and atheism. But I can tell you that as I was making my journey out of Christianity and doubting day in and day out, I could still speak in tongues. And, I daresay, I still can now if I wanted to. (And I did, just now, to see if I still could. And I don't plan on doing so again any time soon because I don't want to offend people on this board.)

I am certain that there are people in churches who do not actually believe, but you'd think do from the fact that they're speaking and shouting in tongues at every church service. I am certain there are unrepentant, sinful tongue speakers in church every Sunday. Maybe even the pillars of your church. Maybe even your pastors.

My point? Just because someone can speak in tongues doesn't mean that they're a believer or saved. Tongues is a lousy marker for belief and salvation.

Depends on WHO is giving the utterance! The SPIRIT or the flesh! I would
fear to make a mockery out of the things of GOD!

[faithit166]

1 corinthians 14;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 peopleand 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 that believe. now a believer who has been filled with the holy ghost and who has spoken in tongues has already experienced for themselves,but yet an unbeliever who has not is yet to experience it

[Pressing-On]

When was Peter baptized in Jesus name?
Jason,
Why would he not obey something he, himself, preached? That wouldn't make sense, IMO.

[Falla39]

and you shall know them by their fruit,

And fruit doesn't show up on a newly planted tree. It take time. Nurturing, watering, etc. How are you
going to tell until the fruit shows up!

How are you going to see fruit from a newborn again "babe in Christ". The sign or first sign of LIFE is the
SOUND that comes from within. Natural or spiritually!

And Jesus said if His Father didn't plant it, it will be rooted up! Sometimes mercy is extended and a
second chance is given, by means of a transplant! Trees can be transplanted in another place. Major organs
are replaced and lives saved (mercy) by way of a transplant/transplants. Perhaps a second chance to get
it right!

Blessings,

[faithit166]

amen amen falla

[faithit166]

just as a baby born natural will cry the sign of life a new born babe will cry spiritually with a sign of speaking in tongues,praise god,you are absolutely correct falla thank you lord for truth

[geekette]

This saddens me, but also makes my point.

Now can anyone prove that geekette "spoke in tongues" when she posted? No. (despite the familiariaty on AFF, its still the internet)

HOWEVER, the fact is that many "tongue talkers" are creatures of habit. Thats not to say that at one time God didn't genuinely give them a gift of speaking in tongues, but through repitition it has become carnal and not spiritual.

I have heard people pray before service who "spoke in tongues" the same "phrases" over and over, yet if someone walks in the sanctuary, they stop greet them "how you doing brother?" and go right back to "speaking in tongues" until another person comes in.

I've heard preachers who preach and as they get louder "speak in tongues" only to notice it was the same phrases time after time.

Now then, I'm not suggesting these are "fake tongues" but rather seems to be a carnal copy of something that was once genuinely given. As some folks say, the brain simply mimmicks what the body has done over and over again in the spirit, thus eventually taking the spiritual experience out of tongues. And it because something that some people turn on and off like the kitchen sink.


Now whether we take geekettes claims seriously or not, we know that there are those who "speak in tongues" in the flesh, and it is certainly plausible that such a person could continue on doing this long after turning away from the faith.

Yet such person could be gone from church for 10 years, come back one day, "speak in tongues" at the alter and repent, and the "church" would believe God didn't accept that repentance and there was still sin in their life.

But if that same person came back after 10 years, was pressured to go to the alter when they really didn't want to, and "spoke in tongues" through an old habit. People would be rejoicing in their "salvation".

I remember how, several years after getting the baptism of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues, I was in the very large graduate research library of my university. And I looked up "glossolalia" in the card catalog. And I walked up to the floor with doctoral dissertations and found the dissertation that someone had done on glossolalia. And I read part of it.

And I walked away from that reading wondering whether or not the baptism I'd received in 1977 was actually a true experience or if it was, as the dissertation indicated, a learned behavior. I wanted to believe it was a special gift from God, but that dissertation, and subsequent research, indicated that, well, maybe it wasn't.

That was pretty earth-shattering for me. Oh, I still believed in Jesus, but at that point I was less inclined to believe that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

I feel really uncomfortable discussing this. On the one hand, I don't want to be accused of damaging someone's faith. However, on the other hand, I feel I have to be honest about my own experience. And I'm acutely aware that there will be some readers who will think that I never was baptized in the Holy Ghost and that I'm lying. That's your choice.

[geekette]

Depends on WHO is giving the utterance! The SPIRIT or the flesh! I would
fear to make a mockery out of the things of GOD!

I'm very sorry if I offended you, Falla, but I am telling the truth about my own experience.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16

[MawMaw]

I witnessed several new people receive the Holy Ghost the other night at church. They ALL spoke with tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance....:) just like the Bible says happens.

NEW people. New to the Experience. New people that most definitely would not know how to "fake" tongues.

It is always, ALWAYS a miraculous thing to witness!

I thank God that He chose the tongue (that unruly member) for EVIDENCE!! :)

[Sam]

When was Peter baptized in Jesus name?

We don't know if he ever was.

[Falla39]

I'm very sorry if I offended you, Falla, but I am telling the truth about my own experience.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16

Hey, Geekette,
You did not offend me at all. I do believe you and have an idea
what happened.
Gotta run for now. Someone's waiting on me!
No, you are not my enemy at all!
Hugs,
Falla39

[Sam]

We don't know if he ever was.

The reason I posted that way is because we have no place in the KJV Bible that tells us when or how or if the Apostle Peter was ever baptized in water. We assume he was but there is no record in our KJV about it.

[Pressing-On]

When was Peter baptized in Jesus name?

We don't know if he ever was.

The reason I posted that way is because we have no place in the KJV Bible that tells us when or how or if the Apostle Peter was ever baptized in water. We assume he was but there is no record in our KJV about it.

So he preached something that he, himself, did not believe enough to obey? Are you kidding me?

[Sam]

So he preached something that he, himself, did not believe enough to obey? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not kidding you. Did you read what I said? I said we assume he was baptized in water but we have no record in our KJV of when, how, or if it was done.

[MawMaw]

No, I'm not kidding you. Did you read what I said? I said we assume he was baptized in water but we have no record in our KJV of when, how, or if it was done.


I cannot believe that anyone would even doubt or wonder in the least about that! :)

[Sam]

Water baptism pre-dated Christianity.

The Jews had a practice of mikveh or ritual washing that goes back to a couple of centuries BCE and was based on Old Testament ritual washings which were done by immersing and pouring water upon. When John the Baptist came baptizing, Jews were familiar with it. Baptism/washing/mikveh was done as an act of dedication to God by Jews and was also practiced by Gentiles who became Jews. Of course there were also pagan washing ceremonies.

[faithit166]

I cannot believe that anyone would even doubt or wonder in the least about that! :)

im with you on this lacey! just as when paul recieved the holy ghost it does not state he spoke in tongues but he said im glad i speak in tongues more than you all god bless

[Sam]

im with you on this lacey! just as when paul recieved the holy ghost it does not state he spoke in tongues but he said im glad i speak in tongues more than you all god bless

The traditional date for the conversion/salvation of Saul on the road outside Damascus is January 25, AD 32. Three days later a believer named Ananias came to him to lay hands on him "that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 9:17). We do read that as a result of the laying on of hands he received sight and we assume that he also received the Holy Ghost Baptism because in several cases in our New Testament it is recorded that the Holy Ghost Baptism was ministered to people by the laying on of hands. There is no mention of speaking with tongues here but we assume he spoke with tongues at the time because several times in our New Testament it is recorded that people spoke with tongues when they were filled with or baptized in the Holy Spirit or when the Holy Spirit fell upon them or came upon them. Then 22 years later when he wrote to the assembly/congregation/church in Corinth, Paul said, "I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Corinthians 14:18). This does not prove that Paul spoke with tongues when he was baptized in the Spirit some twenty years before.

We are all making some assumptions about water baptism and about Spirit baptism and tongues and we are making these assumptions heaven or hell, saved or lost requirements. We need to be a little careful here in our pontification of who is saved or not and about who is going to heaven or not.

[DAII]

:ursofunny

DA you haven't copyrighted this term yet have you?

Not yet but I think Zen Apostolicism is what the DKB is advocating with "focusing your faith" and "concentrating on Him" to get what you want ...

I've never heard of such drivel anywhere in Christianity ... unless we go to the Word of Faith guys... and maybe those involved in the cult of relics.

At its core is the advocating of "self-birthing" ... what is clearly a work solely of the Holy Spirit.

[DAII]

We don't know if he ever was.

Of course he was baptized under the authority and power of He who was authorized by His Father .. in the Lord's name.

There is NO DOCTRINE OF ESSENTIAL INVOCATION AT BAPTISM ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE TO OBTAIN SALVATION ...

It is the devices and fancies of those in Campbellite captivity who pronounce a foreign proper name, that is not even a translation but a transliteration, and think that sins are mystically washed at the moment of dunking and verbalization because of the baptizer/third party getting the precise formula correct.

Salvation hung on the Cross, my mystical 3 stepper brethren.

It's inversed Catholicism with a mix of superstition and mysticism, you espouse.

[DAII]

These hokey analogies of babies crying in the natural ... and necessarily equating it to the spiritual is sheer lunacy and wishful thinking ...

In the 3 step paradigm ... I've heard these self-birthing sycophants compare each step to the gestation period and delivery ... yet in the case of Cornelius we have the "final step", new life/resurrection, or delivery and "crying" in tongues ... before there is a proper burial and "going through the birth canal" ... pick your analogy ...

Can one obey the Gospel and have new life without following the steps Christ took? It's convenient word blathering. That which is still dead cannot be quickened to life unless the Author of Life ... does the quickening ...

The proposal made here is that ... that which is reckoned dead can live before being quickened.

The same folks who politically consider a fetus alive and a baby in the mother's womb... would somehow fallaciously use an analogy that falls short in logical sequence and doctrinally .... while continually putting the glory and effort for the birth and new creation on the baby.

Compare to a physical baby crying all you want ... it ain't bible or logic

If we are going to use the natural and logic to explain the instantaneous work of the Holy Spirit we're doomed to the laws of physics and our limited earth-bound definitions.

We must be born FROM ABOVE (gennao anothen)

[BroGary]

Here is a reply from someone else who was in a simular discussion elsewhere:

I believe they did speak the name of Jesus at some point during the baptism, not the English version of course, but whichever language was contemporary (Jesus is smart enough to know we are speaking to Him whether we are using Greek, Russian, Spanish, etc.) It may not have been exactly like we do it today when we dunk them in the water and say "[name of person], I baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ...", but at some point they needed to tell the person that they are getting baptized in the name of Jesus. Below this paragraph are three verses where the name of Jesus was invoked by spoken words. The verses are not related to baptisms, but they show that yes, indeed, speaking His name was practiced.

"Then Peter said, 'Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.'" Acts 3:16

"...But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, 'I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' And he came out the same hour."

"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, 'We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.." Acts 19:13

If one were not baptized with some kind of spoken reference, how would one know who he or she was baptized "in"? The baptizer could be doing it "in the name" of The Great Pumpkin for all we know. There was a similar situation in the Bible where people were apparently prone to identify baptism "into" someone other than Jesus, which Paul condemed: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." (1 Corinthians 1:13-15). So, it's extremely important that the one being baptized is made aware of exactly who they are being baptised into, and who they are NOT being baptised into, and the only way to do that is to speak it plainly and clearly.
Paul asked a group in Acts 19 about their own baptism methods, and then re-baptized them, so again we know it was important to the original church to know precisely who we were baptized into.
What we actually speak aloud is powerful; for example, "blasphemy" is defined as the audible spoken word against God. Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Apparently just "thinking it" wasn't unforgivable, but speaking that "thinking" aloud is.

[DAII]

Here is a reply from someone else who was in a simular discussion elsewhere:

I believe they did speak the name of Jesus at some point during the baptism, not the English version of course, but whichever language was contemporary (Jesus is smart enough to know we are speaking to Him whether we are using Greek, Russian, Spanish, etc.) It may not have been exactly like we do it today when we dunk them in the water and say "[name of person], I baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ...", but at some point they needed to tell the person that they are getting baptized in the name of Jesus. Below this paragraph are three verses where the name of Jesus was invoked by spoken words. The verses are not related to baptisms, but they show that yes, indeed, speaking His name was practiced.

"Then Peter said, 'Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.'" Acts 3:16

"...But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, 'I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' And he came out the same hour."

"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, 'We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.." Acts 19:13

If one were not baptized with some kind of spoken reference, how would one know who he or she was baptized "in"? The baptizer could be doing it "in the name" of The Great Pumpkin for all we know. There was a similar situation in the Bible where people were apparently prone to identify baptism "into" someone other than Jesus, which Paul condemed: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." (1 Corinthians 1:13-15). So, it's extremely important that the one being baptized is made aware of exactly who they are being baptised into, and who they are NOT being baptised into, and the only way to do that is to speak it plainly and clearly.
Paul asked a group in Acts 19 about their own baptism methods, and then re-baptized them, so again we know it was important to the original church to know precisely who we were baptized into.
What we actually speak aloud is powerful; for example, "blasphemy" is defined as the audible spoken word against God. Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Apparently just "thinking it" wasn't unforgivable, but speaking that "thinking" aloud is.

No doctrine of necessary invocation of the proper name Jesus in the Bible to obtain salvation ... is what you are saying and that your brand of salvation hangs on your assumptions.
:thumbsup

Sound doctrine and hermeneutics don't work that way.

You have no bible for your doctrine. In your paradigm a deaf mute cannot baptize another deaf mute because "speaking the proper name" remits sin.

The Gospel applies in all instances.

[Falla39]

Col. 3:17
17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

[DAII]

Col. 3:17
17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

When you typed that verse, Falla, did you invoke the name "Jesus" at every keystroke ... if you did not .. then using your prooftexting and hermeneutic you've disobeyed this command ... You can't have it both ways.

Doing things in His name has a long tradition in Scripture ... in the OT as well and it was never in the Hebraic mind ... about getting syllables of a proper name ... correctly ...

The power is not in adjuring the proper name ... if so then the sons of Sceva would have been successful ... it's about the power and the authority given by the person of Jesus Christ.

Pull up all the verses that deal with in the name of the Lord, from the OT onward, and you will see a consistent thread and pattern as to its meaning ...

Again, no bible for this doctrine.

[BroGary]

I witnessed several new people receive the Holy Ghost the other night at church. They ALL spoke with tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance....:) just like the Bible says happens.

NEW people. New to the Experience. New people that most definitely would not know how to "fake" tongues.

It is always, ALWAYS a miraculous thing to witness!

I thank God that He chose the tongue (that unruly member) for EVIDENCE!! :)

Amen, excellent example and points !

I remember from years ago someone who did NOT believe speaking in tongues was still for today, but he was very hungry for God and was praying earnestly at the altar reaching out to God in hunger and when God filled him with His Spirit he started speaking in tongues and afterwards had to acknowledge people do speak in tongues as the Spirit gives uttterence :-)

He definitely was NOT trying to speak in tongues because he did NOT believe he was supposed to speak in tongues, but it happened anyhow when he received the Holy Ghost :-)

[Falla39]

I believe there are some on this forum that in their professing to be wise, they are/have
become/becoming foolish!
Falla39

[DAII]

I believe there are some on this forum that in their professing to be wise, they are/have
become/becoming foolish!
Falla39
A fool for the Cross, Falla ... but you cannot make a doctrine from isolating scripture and forcing your meaning into it ... and that's what you have done.

It's unsound and it's why most consider this paradigm heterodoxy or heretical.

No explicit apostolic doctrine of necessary invocation to obtain salvation and sin remission/washing ...

It does not exist.

[Pressing-On]

When you typed that verse, Falla, did you invoke the name "Jesus" at every keystroke ... if you did not .. then using your prooftexting and hermeneutic you've disobeyed this command ... You can't have it both ways.
.

Smart aleck comment, Danny.

I think that if I don't care much for a dress code, i.e. someone telling me what to do or how to dress OR that someone in leadership was a rank sinner, I don't believe I would jump ship toward false doctrine. It's a deception. In patience, possess ye your soul.

[DAII]

Smart aleck comment, Danny.

I think that if I don't care much for a dress code, i.e. someone telling me what to do or how to dress OR that someone in leadership was a rank sinner, I don't believe I would jump ship toward false doctrine. It's a deception. In patience, possess ye your soul.

Did you say "Jesus" after or during ... posting this?

If not then you are in disobedience, as well

Unless Paul meant what most of Christianity understands .... and YOU DON'T.

[Falla39]

A fool for the Cross, Falla ... but you cannot make a doctrine from isolating scripture and forcing your meaning into it ... and that's what you have done.

It's unsound and it's why most consider this paradigm heterodoxy or heretical.

No explicit apostolic doctrine of necessary invocation to obtain salvation and sin remission/washing ...

It does not exist.

Time will tell, dear Dan, Time will tell!:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Did you say "Jesus" after posting this?
Yes, I just added it in, under my breath, so as not to offend you. :D

[Sam]

Col. 3:17
17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

When we baptize someone in or with water, we do it in word and deed. We say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" and then we do it in deed by dunking the person under the water backward or by plunging them straight down into the water or maybe face forward three times depending on how you do it.

[DAII]

Time will tell, dear Dan, Time will tell!:thumbsup

Falla we can create doctrine on our experiences ... which is unsound ...

or ON THE WORD OF GOD ... which is unchangeable/ immutable ...

I have no doubt about your faith in Jesus Christ ... serious doubts about how you approach the salvation He afforded by throwing out Scripture and believing the rest of His Body doesn't get it ...

I think you'll rejoice before the Throne even though you are dead wrong about who will be in Glory.

[DAII]

Yes, I just added it in, under my breath, so as not to offend you. :D

Don't use the Lord's name in vain. *wink*

[Pressing-On]

Don't use the Lord's name in vain. *wink*

:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

[Falla39]

These hokey analogies of babies crying in the natural ... and necessarily equating it to the spiritual is sheer lunacy and wishful thinking ...

In the 3 step paradigm ... I've heard these self-birthing sycophants compare each step to the gestation period and delivery ... yet in the case of Cornelius we have the "final step", new life/resurrection, or delivery and "crying" in tongues ... before there is a proper burial and "going through the birth canal" ... pick your analogy ...
Can one obey the Gospel and have new life without following the steps Christ took? It's convenient word blathering. That which is still dead cannot be quickened to life unless the Author of Life ... does the quickening ...

The proposal made here is that ... that which is reckoned dead can live before being quickened.

The same folks who politically consider a fetus alive and a baby in the mother's womb... would somehow fallaciously use an analogy that falls short in logical sequence and doctrinally .... while continually putting the glory and effort for the birth and new creation on the baby.

Compare to a physical baby crying all you want ... it ain't bible or logic

If we are going to use the natural and logic to explain the instantaneous work of the Holy Spirit we're doomed to the laws of physics and our limited earth-bound definitions.

We must be born FROM ABOVE (gennao anothen)

1Cor.15:45-47

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

First we are born in the natural, then in the spiritual. What do you think "born again" means.

Falla39

[faithit166]

when i found myself at a pentecostal altar in `1993 i had no idea what repentance,baptism in jesus name or even the holy ghost was let alone speaking in tongues but that night i repented once they told me what it was i got baptized in jesus name filled with the holy ghost and spoke in tongues and days later i had to ask what that was lol praise god

[geekette]

when i found myself at a pentecostal altar in `1993 i had no idea what repentance,baptism in jesus name or even the holy ghost was let alone speaking in tongues but that night i repented once they told me what it was i got baptized in jesus name filled with the holy ghost and spoke in tongues and days later i had to ask what that was lol praise god

If you don't understand what's happened to you, can you really say that you've been saved?

[jfrog]

The most telling attribute about those Christians that speak in tongues is that they live life no differently than those who do not.

[faithit166]

oh yeah god met me right where i was at,i started thinking differently ,spoke differently and family stated i didnt even act the same he met me one on one started revealing scripture to me,which before i could not understand like 5 th grade education i had no bible knowledge had no idea what church believed what i asked him to lead me to the church that would take me right straight up to him,and he bypassed all false doctrine thank you jesus

[faithit166]

his spirit guided me into truth

[Falla39]

when i found myself at a pentecostal altar in `1993 i had no idea what repentance,baptism in jesus name or even the holy ghost was let alone speaking in tongues but that night i repented once they told me what it was i got baptized in jesus name filled with the holy ghost and spoke in tongues and days later i had to ask what that was lol praise god

You were as a little child, humble and trusting! Sweet!

[faithit166]

falla do you remember whollyhis on this site

[Falla39]

falla do you remember whollyhis on this site
Yes, I do. I think I might still have her e-mail addy, if it's still the same as it was!

[faithit166]

she was the one praying with me and explaining to me repentance she is a beautiful woman of god

[Falla39]

she was the one praying with me and explaining to me repentance she is a beautiful woman of god

Wonderful! No doubt she is!:thumbsup

[Jason B]

The Bible does not say when, but it should be obvious Peter did, because since God is no respector of persons we would expect that He would not have required any less of the apostles then what He had Peter preach in Acts 2:38 to the people.

Everything that happened from Jesus's earthly ministry thru the time of the apostles time on earth was not recorded in the Bible, otherwise imagine the size the Bible would have been :-)

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Bro. Gary, lets just stick with what the Bible DOES say. :D

You are ASSUMING your doctrine into scripture.

[Jason B]

Jason,
Why would he not obey something he, himself, preached? That wouldn't make sense, IMO.

How do we know He didn't obey? We do know that many (most likely all) of the disciples were baptized with the baptism of repentance. The fact remains the Bible never speaks of, or even hints at a second baptism for Peter or any of the original disciples.

[Jason B]

Amen, excellent example and points !


COME ON!!!!

Those in favor of the initial evidence are AMEN'in each other and telling each other how wonderful their points are, and all you people are offering is subjective experiences, and not making ANY BIBLICAL POINTS at all!

[BroGary]

How do we know He didn't obey? We do know that many (most likely all) of the disciples were baptized with the baptism of repentance. The fact remains the Bible never speaks of, or even hints at a second baptism for Peter or any of the original disciples.

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Jason B]

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Bro. Gary, in Acts 19 the disciples were disciples of John who had not appearently heard of Jesus, but were only baptized knowing a Messiah would come.

Am I saying Peter wasn't baptized in Jesus name? No, I am not. What I am saying is that scripture never speaks or even hints that any of the disciples were rebaptized in Jesus name, which if it is paramount to salvation, you would think there would be at lease a mention in passing somewhere in the Word.

The fact that there is not speaks volumes against your doctrine of necessary invocation, and the same can be said against the doctrine of initial evidence.

[Jason B]

So how do you explain those who DO SPEAK WITH TONGUES, yet are hateful, gossiping, have no self control, are unhappy, and yield pratically NO fruit of the Spirit, that is unless you count things as fruit that the Bible doesn't, such as tongues, dress codes, and the such like. None of those things are fruit in the Biblical sense, those many pulpits have attempted to classify them as such.

If speaking in tongues is absolutely required of ALL believers, so is casting out devils.

Furthermore, you stopped a verse too soon. If casting out devils is literal, and tongues is literal (as we would agree), and if tongues is for EVERY BELIEVER WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then so would also be drinking deadly poison and taking up snakes. IF we're going for ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANTY, using your hermunetic, I would say the Snake Handlers have more to boast about.

Again, you're not quoting the whole verse, I'll help you out it concludes "and magnify God."

They spoke in tongues yes, but they obviously spoke something intelligable to someone. Tongues isn't repeating sounds, nor unknown languages, but rather supernaturally bestowed UNLEARNED languages. Tongues is ALWAYS an actual language.



I've known many who supposedly reached the stage of "stammering lips" but didn't speak in tongues, therefore didn't get the Holy Ghost. TONGUES isn't the rest, belief IS (Hebrews 4).

Bump, for Bro. Gary, from post #128

[Jason B]

Let's stick with your theme:

Other scriptures show Communion is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Foot Washing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Child Bearing is a MUST.
Other scriptures show Tithing is a MUST.

Bump for Bro. Gary, from post #130

[BroGary]

Bro. Gary, in Acts 19 the disciples were disciples of John who had not appearently heard of Jesus, but were only baptized knowing a Messiah would come.

Am I saying Peter wasn't baptized in Jesus name? No, I am not. What I am saying is that scripture never speaks or even hints that any of the disciples were rebaptized in Jesus name, which if it is paramount to salvation, you would think there would be at lease a mention in passing somewhere in the Word.

The fact that there is not speaks volumes against your doctrine of necessary invocation, and the same can be said against the doctrine of initial evidence.

Several of us have already answered your disagreements if you choose to dismiss it that is your free will choice, but we have already clearly shown that baptism must be in Jesus name and the initial evidence is indeed tongues.

Again, the apostles had no special exemption from having had to obey the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38.

[Pressing-On]

So, the apostles thought it was important enough to make other people who were already baptized unto John's baptism of repentence to get baptized in name of Jesus, but they themselves were exempt ? I don't think so :-)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Gee, that was easy! :toofunny

[jfrog]

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

[Falla39]

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

Why not continue on a little farther. It is important HOW we call upon the
LORD!
Psalm 145:18
The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/B]

Paul is speaking to all that be in Rome, called to be saints.
This is speaking to those in Rome who have already been called
to be saints. Those who have already received the Holy Ghost.

[Jason B]

Several of us have already answered your disagreements if you choose to dismiss it that is your free will choice, but we have already clearly shown that baptism must be in Jesus name and the initial evidence is indeed tongues.
Again, the apostles had no special exemption from having had to obey the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38.

Have you clearly shown from scripture? Proven with sound biblical exegesis and contextual support? If so, please provide the post numbers so that I may study those scriptures and cross refences to see if there is indeed something I have overlooked.

So far all I have seen is opinion with little scriptural support. Quoting a scripture does not alone validate a point. Many quote Deuteronomy 22:5 to support a doctrine that a woman cannot wear a pair of jeans, however when that scripture is taken in context with its surrounding scripture, as well as in context with the whole of scripture, that doctrine fails miserably.

The same with the initial evidence doctrine. Which scripture do you have that states that tongues, and only tongues, is the proof of reception of the Holy Ghost? Again, if you have already posted scriptural proof of the initial evidence doctrine, please alert my attention to the post number, so that I may consider the arguments thereof, and post a rebuttal if necessary.

[BroGary]

Have you clearly shown from scripture? Proven with sound biblical exegesis and contextual support? If so, please provide the post numbers so that I may study those scriptures and cross refences to see if there is indeed something I have overlooked.

So far all I have seen is opinion with little scriptural support. Quoting a scripture does not alone validate a point. Many quote Deuteronomy 22:5 to support a doctrine that a woman cannot wear a pair of jeans, however when that scripture is taken in context with its surrounding scripture, as well as in context with the whole of scripture, that doctrine fails miserably.

The same with the initial evidence doctrine. Which scripture do you have that states that tongues, and only tongues, is the proof of reception of the Holy Ghost? Again, if you have already posted scriptural proof of the initial evidence doctrine, please alert my attention to the post number, so that I may consider the arguments thereof, and post a rebuttal if necessary.

So you're off-base on other doctrine too.

Anyhow, nothing personal, but you go back and reread everything, I'm not going to waste my time picking it all out for someone who didn't want to accept the truth we all presented already.

It's late, but this is some scripture that shows people do speak in tongues when they get filled with the Holy Ghost -

....was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues.... Acts 10:45, 46

[jfrog]

Why not continue on a little farther. It is important HOW we call upon the
LORD!
Psalm 145:18
The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/B]

Paul is speaking to all that be in Rome, called to be saints.
This is speaking to those in Rome who have already been called
to be saints. Those who have already received the Holy Ghost.

The way we call upon the Lord is very important. It must be done in truth and that truth is what Paul preaches and what Paul preaches is found in Romans 10:8-9.

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

It is irrelevant who Paul is speaking to when he says "13 For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". The meaning and truth of that statement doesn't change depending on who is being spoken to. It could be said to sinners, to the pope, or to saints and it would still mean the same thing.

Do you know what trying to use the argument that Paul is speaking to saints shows in this situation? It shows the defense that when someone says Romans you say its to saints is so ingrained in you that you don't even think about saying it anymore. Instead, it just comes on cue.

[BroGary]

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

Hey, that didn't mention repentence, so you are saying just believing will save without repenting ? I don't think so :-)

What you wrote might focus on the faith aspect of salvation but it does not negate the necessity of also obeying the gospel.

Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

[Jason B]

Paul is speaking to all that be in Rome, called to be saints.
This is speaking to those in Rome who have already been called
to be saints. Those who have already received the Holy Ghost.

Sis Falla,

what evidence did Paul quote to the Roman believers that they had the Holy Ghost?

Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed ; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits . Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down , and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law

STRANGELY TONGUES IS NEVER MENTIONED AS EITHER A FRUIT, OR OF EVIDENCE THAT WE KNOW GOD AND ARE HIS DISCIPLES.

Furthermore, lets just throw out all that stuff about Abraham being justified by faith in chapter 4. While we're at it, we can cut out chapter 3:21-28, chapter 1:17, All of Romans 5, parts of 6 & 7, of course do away with that pesky Romans 10. In the end we will have the equivalent of the Thomas Jefferson [pentecostal] version of Romans. Just cut out what doesn't agree with your doctrine. Its simple.

[jfrog]

Hey, that didn't mention repentence, so you are saying just believing will save without repenting ? I don't think so :-)

What you wrote might focus on the faith aspect of salvation but it does not negate the necessity of also obeying the gospel.

Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

I don't have a clue why you would quote John 3:5 or Mark 16:16 or even 2 Thessalonians 1:8?????????????? None of those verses say what you need them to say.

I've heard it said that repentance is a change of direction. If someone confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead then I think it can be argued that they have changed direction.

[Falla39]

Romans 10:8-13

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

What is it that Paul preaches?
What shall happen when someone shall call upon the name of the Lord?

Keep reading!

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith cometh by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ! His death, burial and
resurrection! Then you must obey it. Repent, and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. You shall receive power AFTER the Holy
Ghost is come upon you.
Fearful Peter before the cruxcifixion became very bold after Pentecost. He
and John were thrown in prison for being so bold with that name. The name
of Jesus was so powerful that those who opposed it, were afraid of it. Many
today, even denominal ministers speak against baptism in THE name of Jesus.
There's power in the name. There's power in the blood.

I wonder why those who argue against the gospel of Jesus Christ, don't
just go join those who also argue in denominal churches. There are plenty
of churches that argue the same things some of you on this forum argue.
They can be found in most every church in our city. We've seen them for
over 50 years. BUT there are those that have, and are continuing to come
out and have heard, searched out, and obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
They have come out of darkness into His marvelous light. They have been
set free. They have seen the Light of the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ,
dispels the darkness. Darkness attempts to hide full truth. Part truth is
deception.

Have you that don't believe the apostolic message of truth, ever gone to a
denominal church. I can understand someone who was raised in another type
of faith, arguing against apostolic truth. But what's so unbelievable are those
who were raised in the apostolic faith, to argue so against the faith. I'm am
not speaking about standards, etc. I'm speaking about the apostolic plan of
salvation.

It is not my intention at all to be rude or disrespectful. If someone has not
brought you to Christ, you're still under the law. The law of sin and death.
The law could not make anyone righteous. The law was the schoolmaster
to bring us to Christ. Those that are Christ's are not under the law.

Falla39

[BroGary]

I don't have a clue why you would quote John 3:5 or Mark 16:16 or even 2 Thessalonians 1:8?????????????? None of those verses say what you need them to say.

I've heard it said that repentance is a change of direction. If someone confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead then I think it can be argued that they have changed direction.

Those scriptures show that there is more to becoming born again that just believing, there was an expectation that if someone truely believed they would also obey what was required, if they didn't obey those scriptures then they really did not believe what was being preached to them what they had to do.

[jfrog]

Those scriptures show that there is more to becoming born again that just believing, there was an expectation that if someone truely believed they would also obey what was required, if they didn't obey those scriptures then they really did not believe what was being preached to them what they had to do.

John 3:5 Only your faulty interpretation of that verse gives the impression that it says anything about baptism.

Mark 16:16 Never says anything about those who believe and aren't baptized. So, you can't base their fate on this verse.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 Paul tells us what he preaches in Romans 10:8-9

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Therefore obeying the gospel seems to be about confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead.

You did not address my point from the last post that confessing the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead was repentance.

[jfrog]

Keep reading!

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith cometh by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ! His death, burial and
resurrection! Then you must obey it. Repent, and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. You shall receive power AFTER the Holy
Ghost is come upon you.
Fearful Peter before the cruxcifixion became very bold after Pentecost. He
and John were thrown in prison for being so bold with that name. The name
of Jesus was so powerful that those who opposed it, were afraid of it. Many
today, even denominal ministers speak against baptism in THE name of Jesus.
There's power in the name. There's power in the blood.

I wonder why those who argue against the gospel of Jesus Christ, don't
just go join those who also argue in denominal churches. There are plenty
of churches that argue the same things some of you on this forum argue.
They can be found in most every church in our city. We've seen them for
over 50 years. BUT there are those that have, and are continuing to come
out and have heard, searched out, and obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
They have come out of darkness into His marvelous light. They have been
set free. They have seen the Light of the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ,
dispels the darkness. Darkness attempts to hide full truth. Part truth is
deception.

Have you that don't believe the apostolic message of truth, ever gone to a
denominal church. I can understand someone who was raised in another type
of faith, arguing against apostolic truth. But what's so unbelievable are those
who were raised in the apostolic faith, to argue so against the faith. I'm am
not speaking about standards, etc. I'm speaking about the apostolic plan of
salvation.

It is not my intention at all to be rude or disrespectful. If someone has not
brought you to Christ, you're still under the law. The law of sin and death.
The law could not make anyone righteous. The law was the schoolmaster
to bring us to Christ. Those that are Christ's are not under the law.

Falla39

The gospel of Christ is...

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I colored a part of your post that I wanted to comment on. You are correct that the law could not make anyone righteous. Do you know what does make someone righteous? Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Believing with the heart makes a man righteous. Believing what? Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. So, believing in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead makes one righteous. How do you then say of those who God has declared righteous that if they are not baptized that they shall go to hell? Was hell not created for the unrighteous and not the righteous? Are they not righteous when they believe in their heart as the scripture says? So how can they be hellbound?

[BroGary]

John 3:5 Only your faulty interpretation of that verse gives the impression that it says anything about baptism.

Mark 16:16 Never says anything about those who believe and aren't baptized. So, you can't base their fate on this verse.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 Paul tells us what he preaches in Romans 10:8-9

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Therefore obeying the gospel seems to be about confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead.

You did not address my point from the last post that confessing the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead was repentance.

It is so obvious that Peter clearly understood what Jesus meant by "except ye repent" and "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit" that is why he said what he did in Acts 2:38.

Well it should be obvious that since Mark said "he that believeth AND is baptized" shall be saved, that those who don't won't be.

Obey means more than merely believing, you can believe the speed limit is 55, but if you don't obey it you will be in trouble.

Also, in order to OBEY the gospel, you must first know just what the Bible means by "the gospel" and I Cor. 15 shows specifically that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We obey the death when we die out to our old life of sin in repentence.
We obey the burial when we are baptized in Jesus name.
We obey the resurrection by seeking and being filled with His Spirit, the Spirit that resurrected Jesus.

Repentence requires action, like in a earlier post it was showed as being defined as "amending" one's life.

[Jason B]

It is so obvious that Peter clearly understood what Jesus meant by "except ye repent" and "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit" that is why he said what he did in Acts 2:38.
Bro. Gary, can you please prove that Jesus was speaking of water baptism in John 3:5?

Well it should be obvious that since Mark said "he that believeth AND is baptized" shall be saved, that those who don't won't be.
:thumbsup

Obey means more than merely believing, you can believe the speed limit is 55, but if you don't obey it you will be in trouble.
True belief will be evidenced by actions. :thumbsup

Also, in order to OBEY the gospel, you must first know just what the Bible means by "the gospel" and I Cor. 15 shows specifically that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is indeed the gospel

We obey the death when we die out to our old life of sin in repentence.
We obey the burial when we are baptized in Jesus name.
We obey the resurrection by seeking and being filled with His Spirit, the Spirit that resurrected Jesus.
ummm, where do you get that last step? You may want to tell the Apsotle Paul, because He seems to have had an oversight:

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ?
2 God forbid . How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?
3 Know ye not , that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed , that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:


Repentence requires action, like in a earlier post it was showed as being defined as "amending" one's life.
No one is arguing that true repentance includes/requires action on the part of the repentant, but this thread is about tongues and salvation, a theory not backed up with scripture.

[Jason B]

BUMP
what evidence did Paul quote to the Roman believers that they had the Holy Ghost?

Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed ; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits . Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down , and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law

STRANGELY TONGUES IS NEVER MENTIONED AS EITHER A FRUIT, OR OF EVIDENCE THAT WE KNOW GOD AND ARE HIS DISCIPLES.

Furthermore, lets just throw out all that stuff about Abraham being justified by faith in chapter 4. While we're at it, we can cut out chapter 3:21-28, chapter 1:17, All of Romans 5, parts of 6 & 7, of course do away with that pesky Romans 10. In the end we will have the equivalent of the Thomas Jefferson [pentecostal] version of Romans. Just cut out what doesn't agree with your doctrine. Its simple.

[BroGary]

Bro. Gary, can you please prove that Jesus was speaking of water baptism in John 3:5?

:thumbsup

True belief will be evidenced by actions. :thumbsup

That is indeed the gospel

ummm, where do you get that last step? You may want to tell the Apsotle Paul, because He seems to have had an oversight:

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ?
2 God forbid . How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?
3 Know ye not , that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed , that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:


No one is arguing that true repentance includes/requires action on the part of the repentant, but this thread is about tongues and salvation, a theory not backed up with scripture.

Reguarding the last step:

Your reply included: "like as Christ was raised up from the dead"

How was Christ raised from the dead ?
....by the Spirit

Likewise we are raised from being Spiritually dead by being filled with His Spirit.

Romans 8:9 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 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

We will obviously just have to "agree to disagree" on the last point, while tongues in and of itself has no saving power, we do believe it is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost which is very necessary.

[Jason B]

Reguarding the last step:

Your reply included: "like as Christ was raised up from the dead"

How was Christ raised from the dead ?
....by the Spirit

Likewise we are raised from being Spiritually dead by being filled with His Spirit.

Romans 8:9 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 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

We will obviously just have to "agree to disagree" on the last point, while tongues in and of itself has no saving power, we do believe it is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost which is very necessary.


Who is arguing that anyone is saved WITHOUT the Spirit of Christ? No one.

However, those scriptures say absolutely nothing for the initial evidence doctrine, but merely point out the obvious fact, that if the Spirit of God has not entered into the unregenerate sinner, they have not been born again.

They are not in any way related to speaking in tongues.

[BroGary]

Who is arguing that anyone is saved WITHOUT the Spirit of Christ? No one.

However, those scriptures say absolutely nothing for the initial evidence doctrine, but merely point out the obvious fact, that if the Spirit of God has not entered into the unregenerate sinner, they have not been born again.

They are not in any way related to speaking in tongues.

I was simply answering other points that were brought up, but as far as tongues being the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost we have shown scriptural reasons for it, you chose to not agree, that is your right, so we just have to "agree to disagree" on that point :-)

[Jason B]

I was simply answering other points that were brought up, but as far as tongues being the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost we have shown scriptural reasons for it, you chose to not agree, that is your right, so we just have to "agree to disagree" on that point :-)

Bro. Gary, if you say that you have already shown scriptural reasons for tongues being the intial evidence, I will not argue, but I will simply repeat my earlier request, because I can't recalling reading sound biblical exegesis for tongues on this thread:

Have you clearly shown from scripture? Proven with sound biblical exegesis and contextual support? If so, please provide the post numbers so that I may study those scriptures and cross refences to see if there is indeed something I have overlooked.

If you have already posted scriptural proof of the initial evidence doctrine, please alert my attention to the post number, so that I may consider the arguments thereof, and post a rebuttal if necessary.

[BroGary]

Bro. Gary, if you say that you have already shown scriptural reasons for tongues being the intial evidence, I will not argue, but I will simply repeat my earlier request, because I can't recalling reading sound biblical exegesis for tongues on this thread:

No offense intended, but it was simply not considered "sound" in your opinion, you are entitled to your opinion, and we obviously disagree on that subject :-)

[jfrog]

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to disprove that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

It's amazing how Mark 16:16 (one of the most cited 3 stepper scriptures in support of water baptism being salvational) actually disproves the 3rd step of the 3step doctrine (receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues being required for salvation).

[Sister Alvear]

Tongues is NOT the Holy Ghost only a sign of it....well...that is how I feel...of course if Christ is in us we will act Christ-like....wow...that says a lot....

[Falla39]

Tongues is NOT the Holy Ghost only a sign of it....well...that is how I feel...of course if Christ is in us we will act Christ-like....wow...that says a lot....

Amen, Sis. Alvear,

The first sign of life in a new born, natural or spiritual, is a SOUND! It may
be a long time before that "tree" bears fruit! It will need to be watered, nur-
tured, pruned, etc. before it becomes a "fruitful tree". A new born-again babe
in Christ, SHOULD desire the sincere milk of the Word, that it may grow thereby.
A newborn natural babe, should desire mother's milk. Today the makers of
formula make a substitute for mother's milk. Nothing replaces the way GOD
made for babies, naturally or spiritually, to be nourished.

Some babies may have been fed "junk" food and drink all their lives. I've
seen young mothers put soft drinks, etc. in their infants bottles. Those
babies will desire "junk" food and drink, unless someone introduces them to
something more nourishing. I hear children say, "I don't like milk". WHY do they
not like millk! We eleven siblings were "fed the sincere milk of the Word" from
a child. Most, if not all of us, LIKE MILK! But we like MEAT TOO, since we are
now all adults.

1Cor.13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Jesus told his disciples, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life." Yet, there were those who got so angry at his words, they
wanted to kill him!

Hugs,
Falla39

[BroGary]

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to disprove that receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

It's amazing how Mark 16:16 (one of the most cited 3 stepper scriptures in support of water baptism being salvational) actually disproves the 3rd step of the 3step doctrine (receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues being required for salvation).

Your arguement is simply not valid, Mark 16:16 does not specify repentence either, but surely you agree repentence is a must, so just because every verse that relates to salvation does not focus on every aspect of what is required does not mean it is not a must.

[jfrog]

Your arguement is simply not valid, Mark 16:16 does not specify repentence either, but surely you agree repentence is a must, so just because every verse that relates to salvation does not focus on every aspect of what is required does not mean it is not a must.

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.

[jfrog]

Amen, Sis. Alvear,

The first sign of life in a new born, natural or spiritual, is a SOUND! It may
be a long time before that "tree" bears fruit! It will need to be watered, nur-
tured, pruned, etc. before it becomes a "fruitful tree". A new born-again babe
in Christ, SHOULD desire the sincere milk of the Word, that it may grow thereby.
A newborn natural babe, should desire mother's milk. Today the makers of
formula make a substitute for mother's milk. Nothing replaces the way GOD
made for babies, naturally or spiritually, to be nourished.

Some babies may have been fed "junk" food and drink all their lives. I've
seen young mothers put soft drinks, etc. in their infants bottles. Those
babies will desire "junk" food and drink, unless someone introduces them to
something more nourishing. I hear children say, "I don't like milk". WHY do they
not like millk! We eleven siblings were "fed the sincere milk of the Word" from
a child. Most, if not all of us, LIKE MILK! But we like MEAT TOO, since we are
now all adults.

1Cor.13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Jesus told his disciples, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life." Yet, there were those who got so angry at his words, they
wanted to kill him!

Hugs,
Falla39

Trees don't make a sound when they are born and only trees bear fruit. The sound that a tree makes is only made with the wind which comes and goes as it pleases.

[Falla39]

Trees don't make a sound when they are born and only trees bear fruit. The sound that a tree makes is only made with the wind which comes and goes as it pleases.

Isaiah 61:1-4

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.


Trees among other things, provide lumber for building. Jesus said he was going to build HIS church..... What's he going to build it out of! Righteous trees! God said, "Their righteosuness shall be of me". We are His workman ship, His building. For an habitation in the Spirit"!

Matt. 15:13
"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up".

[BroGary]

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.

We can say the same thing for the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost, Mark 16:16 does not specify that either but we know it is required from other verses I have already shared.

The bottom line is that Peter got it right on the day of Pentecost when he shared that repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are all needed.

[Jason B]

My argument is valid and even applies to repentance. I'll walk you through it.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If repentance is required for salvation then every single person that has believed and been baptized must repent or else Jesus was wrong about how he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (for there would be some that believed and were baptized but not saved). Therefore, all I need to find is one example of a person that believes and was baptized but never repented to disprove that repenting is required for salvation.

I don't know of any such person do you? Therefore, everyone that believes and has been baptized has repented.

Further, believing on Jesus is the greatest form of repentance there is for there is no greater way that a man can turn from sin than by turning toward God and by believing on Jesus one has turned toward God.


Exactly.

And if they were baptized, sans belief, their baptism is invalid anyway.

[Jason B]

Amen, Sis. Alvear,

The first sign of life in a new born, natural or spiritual, is a SOUND! It may
be a long time before that "tree" bears fruit! It will need to be watered, nur-
tured, pruned, etc. before it becomes a "fruitful tree".

Here's the problem with the initial evidence doctrine. Too many folks want to play God. Because we are not able to know for sure who truly in their heart believes, and are too impatient to wait for the fruit, people want to force tongues into salvation so that THEY can determine who is saved and who is not.

What is the real FRUIT of this doctrine? BORAT

Though I don't at all agree with what he did, and believe He is probably guilty of blashpemy, He did expose just how weak that doctrine is, and how some "men of God" lack some very basic discernment. But He "made a sound". Whatever.

A new born-again babe
in Christ, SHOULD desire the sincere milk of the Word, that it may grow thereby.
A newborn natural babe, should desire mother's milk. Today the makers of
formula make a substitute for mother's milk. Nothing replaces the way GOD
made for babies, naturally or spiritually, to be nourished.
Yet some substitute sensationalism for the sincere milk of the Word. And this emotionalism is called "the Spirit", yet one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (according to the Bible, which by the way doesn't call tongues a fruit of the Spirit) is self-control. Guess how many times THAT message is preached in contradiction to "get jiggy with it for Jesus" and the such like.

1Cor.13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Strange, 1 Corinthians 13 is a chapter devoted to the importance of love in a Christian life, which just happens to be ANOTHER one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (BTW-tongues ISN'T a fruit of the Spirit according to the Bible).

Furthermore, Paul directly follows his teaching on love with a rebuke and correction of the Corinthians use of tongues in the church. Hardly something to build an initial evidence doctrine on. Reminds me of when AM said at Genreal Conference "Every one speak in tongues when I say NOW.....NOW!" :vomit

[BroGary]

Here's the problem with the initial evidence doctrine. Too many folks want to play God. Because we are not able to know for sure who truly in their heart believes, and are too impatient to wait for the fruit, people want to force tongues into salvation so that THEY can determine who is saved and who is not.

What is the real FRUIT of this doctrine? BORAT

Though I don't at all agree with what he did, and believe He is probably guilty of blashpemy, He did expose just how weak that doctrine is, and how some "men of God" lack some very basic discernment. But He "made a sound". Whatever.

Yet some substitute sensationalism for the sincere milk of the Word. And this emotionalism is called "the Spirit", yet one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (according to the Bible, which by the way doesn't call tongues a fruit of the Spirit) is self-control. Guess how many times THAT message is preached in contradiction to "get jiggy with it for Jesus" and the such like.

Strange, 1 Corinthians 13 is a chapter devoted to the importance of love in a Christian life, which just happens to be ANOTHER one of the FRUITS of the Spirit (BTW-tongues ISN'T a fruit of the Spirit according to the Bible).

Furthermore, Paul directly follows his teaching on love with a rebuke and correction of the Corinthians use of tongues in the church. Hardly something to build an initial evidence doctrine on. Reminds me of when AM said at Genreal Conference "Every one speak in tongues when I say NOW.....NOW!" :vomit

Trying to "orchestrate" a group to speak in tongues on command does not seem quite right, but when someone is receiving the Holy Ghost for the very first time it is out of their control when first speak in tongues as the initial evidence.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame....

(of course I know that those of you who don't accept that tongues is the initial evidence will try to reason it away, but that is already expected so we just "agree to disagree :-)

[Jermyn Davidson]

The bottom line is that Peter got it right on the day of Pentecost when he shared that repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are all needed.

Yes, Peter did get it right.

Peter clearly stated repentance and baptism as commands.

Peter clearly states that one will receive the Holy Ghost-- as a promise, not a command.

Gary, even verse 39 presents the Holy Spirit as a promise-- not a command.

Why aren't we connecting here?

[Pressing-On]

Yes, Peter did get it right.

Peter clearly stated repentance and baptism as commands.

Peter clearly states that one will receive the Holy Ghost-- as a promise, not a command.

Gary, even verse 39 presents the Holy Spirit as a promise-- not a command.

Why aren't we connecting here?

Luke 24:49And, 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.

Acts 1:4 "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."

Jermyn,
Jesus "commanded" them to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they were endued with that promised power.

Jesus told them to "wait for the promise".

It was something that He gave them. Something they could not give themselves. That is why it is called a "gift" and a "promise", yet Jesus still gave them instructions on the receiving of the promise - a command. He "commanded" them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were filled.

Peter then identifies the promise - the evidence of that promise -

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.

It's really very simple.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Luke 24:49And, 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.

Acts 1:4 "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."

Jermyn,
Jesus "commanded" them to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they were endued with that promised power.

Jesus told them to "wait for the promise".

It was something that He gave them. Something they could not give themselves. That is why it is called a "gift" and a "promise", yet Jesus still gave them instructions on the receiving of the promise - a command. He "commanded" them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were filled.

Peter then identifies the promise - the evidence of that promise -

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.

It's really very simple.



THANK YOU!

This makes really good sense!

Being raised in this, I have not seen it in this light before.


However, what about the Ethiopian and the jailer-- were they saved or not saved at the end of the biblical narratives about their conversion experiences?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Jermyn,
Jesus "commanded" them to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they were endued with that promised power.

Jesus told them to "wait for the promise".

It was something that He gave them. Something they could not give themselves. That is why it is called a "gift" and a "promise", yet Jesus still gave them instructions on the receiving of the promise - a command. He "commanded" them not to depart from Jerusalem until they were filled.




Not being a smart donkey but, I didn't wait in Jerusalem. I've never been to Jerusalem.

Furthermore, the "waiting" is not part of the scriptural pattern for believers speaking in tongues under the influence of the Holy Ghost.


Was Cornelius commanded to wait?

The disciples at Ephesus?


The pattern of the Tabernacle is relavant to the New Testament Christian experience.

The teaching that one will speak in tongues once they are saved to verify they are saved is not.

[jfrog]

We can say the same thing for the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost, Mark 16:16 does not specify that either but we know it is required from other verses I have already shared.

The bottom line is that Peter got it right on the day of Pentecost when he shared that repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost are all needed.

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.

[BroGary]

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.

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.

[Pressing-On]

Not being a smart donkey but, I didn't wait in Jerusalem. I've never been to Jerusalem.
LOL! Good heavens! So, you can't understand the principle since you never lived in the area? LOL! All of His words are for our example, whether we lived in the vicinity or not. LOL!

Furthermore, the "waiting" is not part of the scriptural pattern for believers speaking in tongues under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Was Cornelius commanded to wait?

The disciples at Ephesus?
I have seen some have to wait. Myself for instance. And I cannot speak for anyone else, but I had made up my mind to serve/give my life to the Lord and, therefore, I repented and was baptized. I did not receive the Holy Ghost right away. I found out that there were some other things, I didn't think were sin, that God apparently felt I needed to lay aside. When I laid those things aside, I received His Spirit.

The pattern of the Tabernacle is relavant to the New Testament Christian experience.

The teaching that one will speak in tongues once they are saved to verify they are saved is not.
The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is very relevant to the NT Christian experience. It is spoken of in Hebrews 10 - the Holiest of Holies behind the veil.

Hebrews 10:19 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"

21 "And having an high priest over the house of God;"

22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

His blood/sacrifice has provided the way. We must have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (repentance) and our bodies washed with pure water (baptism). We then are filled with His Spirit entering into the Holiest of Holies - the secret place of the most High (Psalm 91).

[Michael]

:tantrum

[BroGary]

LOL! Good heavens! So, you can't understand the principle since you never lived in the area? LOL! All of His words are for our example, whether we lived in the vicinity or not. LOL!


I have seen some have to wait. Myself for instance. And I cannot speak for anyone else, but I had made up my mind to serve/give my life to the Lord and, therefore, I repented and was baptized. I did not receive the Holy Ghost right away. I found out that there were some other things, I didn't think were sin, that God apparently felt I needed to lay aside. When I laid those things aside, I received His Spirit.


The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is very relevant to the NT Christian experience. It is spoken of in Hebrews 10 - the Holiest of Holies behind the veil.



His blood/sacrifice has provided the way. We must have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (repentance) and our bodies washed with pure water (baptism). We then are filled with His Spirit entering into the Holiest of Holies - the secret place of the most High (Psalm 91).

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....

[Michael]

Oh don't mind me, I'm just having fun....


:neener:blah:bliss:ursofunny:spit:thumbsup

[jfrog]

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.

I love when people respond and say things that don't have anything to do with the discussion. The sky is blue... Red is a color... Dolphins swim... The Holy Ghost wasn't poured out yet... What does the Holy Ghost not being poured out yet have to do with what Jesus says shall save a person? And what does the Holy Ghost not being poured out yet have to do with people today (after it has been poured out) believing and being baptized but never receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

The bottom line is that we all know someone who has believed and been baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Jesus said such a person was saved because they believed and were baptized. You say such a person is damned. I'll stick with Jesus.

[BroGary]

I love when people respond and say things that don't have anything to do with the discussion. The sky is blue... Red is a color... Dolphins swim... The Holy Ghost wasn't poured out yet... What does the Holy Ghost not being poured out yet have to do with what Jesus says shall save a person? And what does the Holy Ghost not being poured out yet have to do with people today (after it has been poured out) believing and being baptized but never receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

The bottom line is that we all know someone who has believed and been baptized but never received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Jesus said such a person was saved because they believed and were baptized. You say such a person is damned. I'll stick with Jesus.

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.

[Pressing-On]

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....

:thumbsup

The Word is lined out with such determined detail and beauty!! I'm am always amazed!!!