When do you believe Paul recieved the Holy Ghost?

[jfrog]

What is your opinion?

[Digging4Truth]

"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 you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."--Acts 9:17,18.

[onefaith2]

The text doesn't mention his filling with the Holy Ghost, only says that ye might be filled. Then it simply describes scales falling from his eyes which was the other thing Ananias said that Jesus sent him to do. Why do you think the Scripture doesn't say, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost, like it does in other places?

This is one place in the scripture where silence is obvious that he did get the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Ananias mission was only half productive. One preacher used this scripture as proof against initial evidence, when he said some people like Paul, when they got the Holy Ghost, their eyes were opened.

I don't buy the argument because the scripture never describes him being filled with the HG.

[wittenberg]

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

[mfblume]

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

If he received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus, why do we read Ananias told him after that experience on the road that he was, future tense, to receive the Holy Ghost?

Acts 9:17 KJV 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.


Calling Jesus by the influence of the Holy Ghost does not mean one is baptized with the Holy Ghost to know He is Lord.

[onefaith2]

I agree Mike, Ananias would have never said he was there for him to be filled with the Holy Ghost if he already had been.

[mfblume]

I believe Paul received the Holy Ghost when Ananias laid hands on him. And I believe he spoke with tongues. I do not think tongues had to be mentioned every time people received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. Acts is a historical account. We read the Jews spoke in tongues in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 and John's disciples in Acts 19. Many non-pentecostal Scholars agree that Acts 8 and the Samaritans involved speaking in tongues as well since they saw miracles and devils cast out, but something apart from that caused Simon to "SEE" that laying on of hands caused the people to receive the Holy Ghost. Once this has been established amongst the various ethnic and distinct groups of people, it need not be mentioned again every time someone is said to have received the Spirit.

And the bottom line is, as jfrog and I already discussed months ago, that it is not plainly explicit anywhere in the Bible that Acts 2 had people receive both Spirit Baptism as well indwelling of the Spirit (as though they were two different experiences), any more than it is plainly explicit that everyone who is Spirit baptized speaks in tongues. To me, the principle of Occam's razor makes it more sensible to conclude that Spirit indwelling and Spirit Baptism are one and the same experience.

So the bottom line is one will find what one WANTS to find in order to confirm one's bent on the issue in all these accounts, including Paul's experience

:D

[Digging4Truth]

The text doesn't mention his filling with the Holy Ghost, only says that ye might be filled. Then it simply describes scales falling from his eyes which was the other thing Ananias said that Jesus sent him to do. Why do you think the Scripture doesn't say, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost, like it does in other places?

This is one place in the scripture where silence is obvious that he did get the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Ananias mission was only half productive. One preacher used this scripture as proof against initial evidence, when he said some people like Paul, when they got the Holy Ghost, their eyes were opened.

I don't buy the argument because the scripture never describes him being filled with the HG.

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?

Acts 9:17 KJV - 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.
Acts 9:18 KJV - And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.

ἀναβλέπω

Transliteration
anablepō

Pronunciation
ä-nä-ble'-pō

Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)
From ἀνά (G303) and βλέπω (G991)

View Entry
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to look up
2) to recover (lost) sight

[Digging4Truth]

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

Then for what purpose would he be told that he was going to receive his sight and receive the Holy Ghost?

[mfblume]

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?

MIGHT in the KJV means it will happen.

And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.
Right.

[onefaith2]

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?



And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.

Did you read all my post? I don't believe either was a might or iffy. The scripture just doesn't describe the infilling as it does the eyes opened.

[mfblume]

Did you read all my post? I don't believe either was a might or iffy. The scripture just doesn't describe the infilling as it does the eyes opened.

Must it speak of the infilling, though, to help us know whether it happened or not?

Even John Gill said this about Acts 9:17:

and be filled with the Holy Ghost; with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as speaking with divers tongues, healing diseases, and the like; for as for the graces of the Spirit, and even Gospel light and knowledge, and gifts for preaching it, he had received these already.

[onefaith2]

Must it speak of the infilling, though, to help us know whether it happened or not?

No and thats my point to all those who say, HEY tongues aren't mentioned and he got the Holy Ghost, right there! The only thing that happened was his blinded eyes were opened.

My answer is, Yes thats the only thing that happened that is written because the other isn't even stated. Its pretty obvious though he got the HOly Ghost.

[mfblume]

No and thats my point to all those who say, HEY tongues aren't mentioned and he got the Holy Ghost, right there! The only thing that happened was his blinded eyes were opened.

My answer is, Yes thats the only thing that happened that is written because the other isn't even stated. Its pretty obvious though he got the HOly Ghost.

:thumbsup

[jfrog]

Have I just made the first poll that everyone has agreed on in AFF history? WOW I think I have!

[jfrog]

Have I just made the first poll that everyone has agreed on in AFF history? WOW I think I have!

Opps I take that back, there was one guy who disagreed in the thread and I didn't give him an option for the poll so he couldn't vote :(

[Pressing-On]

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?



And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.

MIGHT in the KJV means it will happen.


Right.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

[Digging4Truth]

Opps I take that back, there was one guy who disagreed in the thread and I didn't give him an option for the poll so he couldn't vote :(

And... I had a poll thread that asked "Was Jesus God manifest in the flesh"...

100% for... no dissenting votes. :)

[Praxeas]

The text doesn't mention his filling with the Holy Ghost, only says that ye might be filled. Then it simply describes scales falling from his eyes which was the other thing Ananias said that Jesus sent him to do. Why do you think the Scripture doesn't say, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost, like it does in other places?

It does not say that.
Act 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Nor in the KJV
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.

Here is a problem with linguistics and why we need better translations and or to study better. "Might" does not mean "hmmmm maybe but not necessarily", at least not here. He really DID receive his sight.

[Praxeas]

If he received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus, why do we read Ananias told him after that experience on the road that he was, future tense, to receive the Holy Ghost?
Acts 9:17 KJV 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.
Calling Jesus by the influence of the Holy Ghost does not mean one is baptized with the Holy Ghost to know He is Lord.
How is that future tense?
BTW this is the same word "filled" as here
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Be Filled is not future tense. Not in the greek

The tense is, however, subjunctive which means this event is probable or possible which doesn't mean much since his healing was also probably or possible

However the healing and the filling were both connected to the action of Ananias laying hands on Paul. That was his mission, to come and lay hands on Paul so that Paul would be a) healed and b) filled...just like the song says

[Praxeas]

I agree Mike, Ananias would have never said he was there for him to be filled with the Holy Ghost if he already had been.
the poll does not suggest Paul already had been. It asks if he did at that moment or shortly after Ananias laid hands on him

[Praxeas]

I believe Paul received the Holy Ghost when Ananias laid hands on him. And I believe he spoke with tongues. I do not think tongues had to be mentioned every time people received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

:D
Then what is the point of you saying it was future tense?

[wittenberg]

One should then know that there is a difference between the terms: Receiving the Holy Ghost (which happens when you receive Christ, for they are one) and being baptized in the Holy Ghost. The question I believe orginally was "When did Paul received the Holy Ghost?" Again, no one has answered this...If no man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost, then we can assume that one must have the Holy Ghost to cry out: Lord (like the thief on the cross...who was filled with the Holy Ghost. For his eyes were opened and he by the Holy Ghost said: Lord!)

[mizpeh]

Then what is the point of you saying it was future tense?Where did Ananias speak in the future tense in verse 17?

[mfblume]

Where did Ananias speak in the future tense in verse 17?

Acts 9:17 KJV 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.

Acts 9:17 CEV Ananias left and went into the house where Saul was staying. Ananias placed his hands on him and said, "Saul, the Lord Jesus has sent me. He is the same one who appeared to you along the road. He wants you to be able to see and to be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 9:17 Complete Apostles' Bible (17) And Ananias departed and entered the house; and putting his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me, the One who appeared to you in the way which you were coming, so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

[mizpeh]

One should then know that there is a difference between the terms: Receiving the Holy Ghost (which happens when you receive Christ, for they are one) and being baptized in the Holy Ghost. The question I believe orginally was "When did Paul received the Holy Ghost?" Again, no one has answered this...If no man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost, then we can assume that one must have the Holy Ghost to cry out: Lord (like the thief on the cross...who was filled with the Holy Ghost. For his eyes were opened and he by the Holy Ghost said: Lord!)The verse you are quoting "no man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Spirit..." is in regard to the gifts of the Spirit. If someone is prophesying and in the prophecy they say that Jesus is Lord, then we know the Spirit speaking through them is the Holy Spirit and not a demon.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

There is no difference between receiving the Spirit and being baptized with the Spirit, imo. Can you show us the difference from the Bible? You might like to start with Acts 8.

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

[mizpeh]

Acts 9:17 KJV 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.

Acts 9:17 CEV Ananias left and went into the house where Saul was staying. Ananias placed his hands on him and said, "Saul, the Lord Jesus has sent me. He is the same one who appeared to you along the road. He wants you to be able to see and to be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 9:17 Complete Apostles' Bible (17) And Ananias departed and entered the house; and putting his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me, the One who appeared to you in the way which you were coming, so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."Those verbs are in the subjunctive mood.

[mfblume]

One should then know that there is a difference between the terms: Receiving the Holy Ghost (which happens when you receive Christ, for they are one) and being baptized in the Holy Ghost. The question I believe orginally was "When did Paul received the Holy Ghost?" Again, no one has answered this...If no man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost, then we can assume that one must have the Holy Ghost to cry out: Lord (like the thief on the cross...who was filled with the Holy Ghost. For his eyes were opened and he by the Holy Ghost said: Lord!)

Received, filled, baptized with the Spirit all are one and the same experience. I will prove it.

BIBLICAL TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE EXPERIENCE OF ACTS 2:4

Let us examine whether or not one can "receive the Holy Ghost" before one is "baptized with the Holy Ghost". The experience in John 20:22 was explicitly stated by Jesus to be "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." The experience of Acts 2:4 was called the "baptism of the Holy GHost.

Acts 1:4-5 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. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

The promise of the Father was spoken earlier by Jesus as follows:

Luke 24:47-49 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.


This occurred as follows:

Acts 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

According to Jesus words in Acts 1 and Acts 2, the experience of Acts 2:4 was receiving the promise, being baptized with the Holy Ghost and being filled with the Holy Ghost. All these three descriptions describe the experience of Acts 2:4. Those who believe Jesus gave the Holy Ghost to the disciples in John 20:22 believe this account in Acts 2:4 is a different experience than "receiving the Holy Ghost." In other words, the disciples already had received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, received the promise, and filled with the Holy Ghost.

So we see Acts 2:4's experience called:

Receiving the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4).
Being Baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:5).
Being Filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4).

Now, remember, wittenberg said this is a second experience by those who feel one receives the Spirit automatically upon faith and repentance.

Jesus also said these words:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:

So we can add these descriptions to the list of how this SECOND EXPERIENCE is termed as well.

Receiving the power (Acts 1:8).
Holy Ghost come upon people

Samaritans were water baptized but had not "received" the Spirit. So they sent for John and Peter:

Notice the terms used to describe what they had not yet experienced upon water baptism:

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

Here is what occurred after the two apostles arrived.

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

That is the exact same terminology used when Jesus breathed on them:

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

We also see another term used to describe this experience they did not have before and when they were water baptized:

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

So now we have a larger list of terms used for the alleged "second experience" that people who feel the Spirit indwells us before "baptism" experience.

Receiving the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4).
Baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:5).
Receiving the power (Acts 1:8).
Holy Ghost come upon people (Acts 1:8)
Being filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4).
Receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17).
Having the Holy Ghost fall upon a person (Acts 8:16).

The conclusion that one "receives" the Holy Ghost as a first experience of the Spirit followed by a second experience of "receiving the Holy Ghost" is simply nonsensical. Note: The Bible called the alleged two experiences by the same term "receive the Holy Ghost". They are not two different experiences. they are one and the same experience.

ACTS 10 AND THE GENTILES

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
As the Gentiles heard Peter preach the Word, the gift of the Holy Ghost was "poured out" upon them. Peter said they RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST. This is what the "two experiences" proponents would term the "second experience". Peter later recounted his experience with the Gentiles in Acts Chapter 10, using these words:
Acts 11:15-17 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Again we see stated that "the falling of the Holy Ghost upon a person" is the same experience as being baptized with the Holy Ghost. And Peter called it the "like gift as he did unto us". In other words, that baptism of the Holy Ghost is the GIFT of the Holy Ghost mentioned in Acts 2:38. Peter said it was the "LIKE GIFT", or the "SAME GIFT."

Peter retold the same event of Acts 2 in Acts 15.
Acts 15:7-8 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Notice the terms he used. He described this experience as "giving them the Holy Ghost." And we find that when God gave them the Holy Ghost, they spoke in tongues.

So again here are the terms used so far to be synonymous with the one and the same experience.

Receiving the promise (Acts 1:4).
Baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:5).
Receiving the power (Acts 1:8).
The Holy GHost came upon
Being filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4).
Receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17).
Having the Holy Ghost fall upon you (Acts 8:16).
Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:17; 2:38).
Having the Holy Ghost poured out upon you (Acts 10:45) .
Being GIVEN the Holy Ghost (Acts 15:8).

Look at point 6 especially. It is using the same terms as did Jesus in John 20:22.

[mfblume]

Those verbs are in the subjunctive mood.

Right. And that is in anticipation of the object that is desired, not after that object is already obtained.

[mfblume]

Then what is the point of you saying it was future tense?

Because Ananias had not yet laid his hands on Paul, to show Paul had not received the Spirit on the road to Damascus as wittenberg said.

[Austin]

:banghead:banghead:banghead:banghead

[wittenberg]

Ok, someone has said that receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the Spirit is one in the same...not so. Scripture: "And the babe leaped in her womb and she (Elizabeth) was filled with the Holy Ghost". The Holy Ghost is God's spirit within us, which happens miracurously at conversion (when we receive Christ and ask him to come in...by his Spirit!!), and the various gifts of the spirit, including spirit baptism, are sub-sequent to salvation. Saul received God's spirit the moment he cried out and acknowledged him as Lord.

Funny, in ALL his personal testimonies throughout the book of Acts, he says over and over....I was on the road to Dasmascus...He recalled each and everytime his personal encounter with God, but never mentioned being baptized or speaking in tongues. Why? Because his conversion experience happened on that very road.

[Praxeas]

Where did Ananias speak in the future tense in verse 17?
He didn't

[Praxeas]

Those verbs are in the subjunctive mood.
I pointed that out earlier.

[Praxeas]

Right. And that is in anticipation of the object that is desired, not after that object is already obtained.
That is not "future tense"...future tense is clearly "future tense"...

For example Acts 1:5 "shall be baptized" is future tense of "baptizo" and is passive. That is why it gets translated as "shall be baptized"

[Praxeas]

Because Ananias had not yet laid his hands on Paul, to show Paul had not received the Spirit on the road to Damascus as wittenberg said.
Ah, but still the grammar is not future tense. It's conditional of "Lay on hands"

In other words this happening will take place when he lays hands on Paul. There is no grammar to suggest a later future date after laying hands

[MissBrattified]

We can rule out Paul being filled with the Holy Ghost prior to Ananias, because the scripture says that Ananias was sent to Paul for that purpose.

"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 you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."--Acts 9:17,18.

The fact that it doesn't specify that it happened doesn't mean it didn't. It doesn't say earlier that Ananias was sent so that Paul would be baptized, but we see that he was.

I could go with a theory that he received it later, but not before. Again, Jesus sent Ananias to Paul so that he would be filled with the Holy Ghost (and receive his sight). That part isn't ambiguous.

We also know that at some point after that he spoke in tongues, since he said later that he spoke in tongues "more than you all."

So whether it all happened at once or not, we know that Paul:

1. Received his sight
2. Was baptized
3. Spoke in tongues

And we know that, logically, before he met Ananias, Paul was not:

1. Healed of his blindness
2. Filled with the Holy Ghost

[mizpeh]

I pointed that out earlier.

Sorry, I skimmed through this thread and missed it!

[MissBrattified]

...The Holy Ghost is God's spirit within us, which happens miracurously at conversion ...Saul received God's spirit the moment he cried out and acknowledged him as Lord.

If the "Holy Ghost is God's spirit within us" then what is being "filled with the Holy Ghost?" How is being filled with the Spirit different from the Spirit being in us?

[mizpeh]

Ah, but still the grammar is not future tense. It's conditional of "Lay on hands"

In other words this happening will take place when he lays hands on Paul. There is no grammar to suggest a later future date after laying handsWhat is your point, Prax?

[Praxeas]

What is your point, Prax?
Huh? :chirp

[mizpeh]

Huh? :chirpNevermind.

[jfrog]

We can rule out Paul being filled with the Holy Ghost prior to Ananias, because the scripture says that Ananias was sent to Paul for that purpose.

:thumbsup I agree!

"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 you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."--Acts 9:17,18.

The fact that it doesn't specify that it happened doesn't mean it didn't. It doesn't say earlier that Ananias was sent so that Paul would be baptized, but we see that he was.

I could go with a theory that he received it later, but not before. Again, Jesus sent Ananias to Paul so that he would be filled with the Holy Ghost (and receive his sight). That part isn't ambiguous.

I'm with you so far. It is possible that he received the Holy Ghost later, but not likely. First of all almost no one here believes Paul received it later. Secondly, The language used says that God sent Ananias so that Paul could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Since Paul received his sight at that time I find it probable that he also received the Holy Ghost at that time.

We also know that at some point after that he spoke in tongues, since he said later that he spoke in tongues "more than you all."

Him saying he spoke in tongues does not imply that he spoke in tongues upon receiving the Holy Ghost.

So whether it all happened at once or not, we know that Paul:

1. Received his sight
2. Was baptized
3. Spoke in tongues

And we know that, logically, before he met Ananias, Paul was not:

1. Healed of his blindness
2. Filled with the Holy Ghost

So here is what I am wanting to say and I will use the majority opinion that he received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 to say it. And before you or anyone disagrees really consider what I am saying in this last argument.

If the bible really does mean that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 (and that's what 90% or more of us believe) then we have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without the mention of tongues. Why is that important? Because the tongues as initial evidence doctrine is built upon the premise that everytime someone got the Holy Ghost in the bible that they spoke in tongues. Acts 8 would put a kink in that doctrine but the people who received it obviously did something unspecified upon receiving the Holy Ghost. But if Paul really did receive the Holy Ghost right there in Acts 9 then a real kink occurs because we have an account of a man receiving the Holy Ghost and no mention or implication of him speaking in tongues at that time.

It's not just that we would have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost with no mention of tongues, it is also that this account of Paul receiving the Holy Ghost occurs before 2 of the 3 scriptures used to establish a pattern of tongues. So it seems to me that as long as one believes Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 that it breaks the whole pattern of the bible mentioning or implying tongues everytime someone received the Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

So here is what I am wanting to say and I will use the majority opinion that he received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 to say it. And before you or anyone disagrees really consider what I am saying in this last argument.

If the bible really does mean that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 (and that's what 90% or more of us believe) then we have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without the mention of tongues. Why is that important? Because the tongues as initial evidence doctrine is built upon the premise that everytime someone got the Holy Ghost in the bible that they spoke in tongues. Acts 8 would put a kink in that doctrine but the people who received it obviously did something unspecified upon receiving the Holy Ghost. But if Paul really did receive the Holy Ghost right there in Acts 9 then a real kink occurs because we have an account of a man receiving the Holy Ghost and no mention or implication of him speaking in tongues at that time.

It's not just that we would have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost with no mention of tongues, it is also that this account of Paul receiving the Holy Ghost occurs before 2 of the 3 scriptures used to establish a pattern of tongues. So it seems to me that as long as one believes Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 that it breaks the whole pattern of the bible mentioning or implying tongues everytime someone received the Holy Ghost.
Everyone knew this was your point I think and someone already addressed it. Just because it was not mentioned does not mean he did not speak in tongues any more than the word repentance not being mentioned means Paul did not repent either

[jfrog]

Everyone knew this was your point I think and someone already addressed it. Just because it was not mentioned does not mean he did not speak in tongues any more than the word repentance not being mentioned means Paul did not repent either

I'm not arguing that the bible is silent so he didn't speak in tongues. My argument was that tongues as initial evidence is built upon a pattern of tongues being mentioned or implied everytime someone received the Holy Ghost in the bible. Since most all of us believe that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 and we know that there was no mention of tongues in Acts 9 then the pattern that tongues is always mentioned or implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost is broken. Without that pattern, tongues as initial evidence doctrine fails.

[MissBrattified]

So here is what I am wanting to say and I will use the majority opinion that he received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 to say it. And before you or anyone disagrees really consider what I am saying in this last argument.

If the bible really does mean that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 (and that's what 90% or more of us believe) then we have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without the mention of tongues. Why is that important? Because the tongues as initial evidence doctrine is built upon the premise that everytime someone got the Holy Ghost in the bible that they spoke in tongues. Acts 8 would put a kink in that doctrine but the people who received it obviously did something unspecified upon receiving the Holy Ghost. But if Paul really did receive the Holy Ghost right there in Acts 9 then a real kink occurs because we have an account of a man receiving the Holy Ghost and no mention or implication of him speaking in tongues at that time.

It's not just that we would have an account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost but no mention of tongues, it is also that this account of Paul receiving the Holy Ghost occurs before 2 of the other 3 scriptures used to establish a pattern. So it seems to me that as long as one believes Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 that it breaks the whole pattern of the bible mentioning or implying tongues everytime someone received the Holy Ghost.

Not necessarily, since a lack of mention doesn't mean a lack of occurrence. Also, there's no pattern to break in my line of thought, since I already know that the Bible doesn't mention or imply speaking in tongues everytime someone received the Holy Ghost.

I just don't see the necessity of it being mentioned to make it something that was likely to have occurred.

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

No mention of tongues.

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

No mention of tongues.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

To me, THIS is a strong argument for tongues as initial evidence, because it says that those of the circumcision were "astonished" because the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost, "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."

Then Peter comments that the Gentiles "...have received the Holy Ghost as well as we...."

Is he saying they received the Holy Ghost in the same manner? Or it was received by the Gentiles as well as the Jews? Either way, both experiences for the Gentiles and the Jews included "speaking with tongues."

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Is Peter comparing the experiences? Saying that the Holy Ghost fell on them in the same manner? (as on *us* at the beginning)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

To me, even though a few of the accounts leave it out, it seems that it was a common occurrence for tongues to accompany being filled with the Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

I'm not arguing that the bible is silent so he didn't speak in tongues. My argument was that tongues as initial evidence is built upon a pattern of tongues being mentioned or implied everytime someone receives the Holy Ghost in the bible. Since most all of us believe that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 and we know that there was no mention of tongues in Acts 9 then the pattern that tongues is always mentioned or implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost is broken. Without that pattern tongues as initial evidence doctrine fails.
Your argument of a broken pattern assumes we argue EVERY TIME the bible mentions someone being filled they speak in tongues

Again, you might not realize it but you are still making an argument from silence.

Also the pattern idea is not based on the assertion that everytime someone received the Spirit the spoke in tongues but also on other grammatical cues

For example it was an obvious sign to the Jews in Acts 10

In Acts 8 there was an obvious reason they knew those Samaritans (baptized and believing in what was preached) had not received the Spirit yet.

[MissBrattified]

I'm not arguing that the bible is silent so he didn't speak in tongues. My argument was that tongues as initial evidence is built upon a pattern of tongues being mentioned or implied everytime someone received the Holy Ghost in the bible. Since most all of us believe that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 and we know that there was no mention of tongues in Acts 9 then the pattern that tongues is always mentioned or implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost is broken. Without that pattern, tongues as initial evidence doctrine fails.

It only fails if it's built on the false notion that tongues are mentioned or implied everytime someone received the Holy Ghost. If it's not built on that idea, then how can that idea cause the belief to fail?

I believe that it's likely because Peter preached it on the Day of Pentecost when the idea was first introduced, and because it was mentioned or implied in most of the accounts in the book of Acts. I don't ever recall being told by anyone in the pulpit or out of it that everytime someone was filled with the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts, it records them speaking in tongues.

[jfrog]

Not necessarily, since a lack of mention doesn't mean a lack of occurrence. Also, there's no pattern to break in my line of thought, since I already know that the Bible doesn't mention or imply speaking in tongues everytime someone received the Holy Ghost.

I just doesn't see the necessity of the mention to make it something that was likely to have occurred.

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

No mention of tongues.

Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

No mention of tongues.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

To me, THIS is a strong argument for tongues as initial evidence, because it says that those of the circumcision were "astonished" because the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost, "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."

Then Peter comments that the Gentiles "...have received the Holy Ghost as well as we...."

Is he saying they received the Holy Ghost in the same manner? Or it was received by the Gentiles as well as the Jews? Either way, both experiences for the Gentiles and the Jews included "speaking with tongues."

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Is Peter comparing the experiences? Saying that the Holy Ghost fell on them in the same manner? (as on *us* at the beginning)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

To me, even though a few of the accounts leave it out, it seems that it was a common occurrence for tongues to accompany being filled with the Holy Ghost.

Your last paragraph says it all. Tongues being a common occurence upon receiving the Holy Ghost does not mean or imply that everyone speaks in tongues upon receiving the Holy Ghost. The only argument that could compel me to accept that tongues always occurs upon receiving the Holy Ghost is if tongues always occurred or were strongly implied everytime someone received the Holy Ghost in the bible. You admit this doesn't happen? So how do you still believe the bible supports tongues as initial evidence doctrine?

[jfrog]

Your argument of a broken pattern assumes we argue EVERY TIME the bible mentions someone being filled they speak in tongues

Again, you might not realize it but you are still making an argument from silence.

Also the pattern idea is not based on the assertion that everytime someone received the Spirit the spoke in tongues but also on other grammatical cues

For example it was an obvious sign to the Jews in Acts 10

In Acts 8 there was an obvious reason they knew those Samaritans (baptized and believing in what was preached) had not received the Spirit yet.

You admit the same thing as MissB does. How in the world can you believe in tongues as initial evidence if you don't believe the bible shows or implies tongues to occur everytime someone receives the Holy Ghost? The most you can get without the bible saying or implying tongues occurs everytime someone receives the Holy Ghost is that tongues COMMONLY happen upon receiving the Holy Ghost. That is a big difference.

[MissBrattified]

You admit the same thing as MissB does. How in the world can you believe in tongues as initial evidence if you don't believe the bible shows tongues to occur everytime someone receives the Holy Ghost? The most you can get without the bible saying tongues occurs everytime someone receives the Holy Ghost is that tongues COMMONLY happen upon receiving the Holy Ghost. That is a big difference.

You're so...excited, jfrog. LOL!!! You're exactly correct; I believe that since the Bible mentions (or implies) tongues almost every time a person was filled with the Holy Ghost that it can be an accepted sign of the occurrence.

I feel the same way about Baptism in Jesus' name; even though accounts sometimes say in the "name of the Lord", I still believe that we should be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, based on all of the accounts and other supporting scriptures. :)

[jfrog]

You're so...excited, jfrog. LOL!!! You're exactly correct; I believe that since the Bible mentions (or implies) tongues almost every time a person was filled with the Holy Ghost that it can be an accepted sign of the occurrence.

I feel the same way about Baptism in Jesus' name; even though accounts sometimes say in the "name of the Lord", I still believe that we should be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, based on all of the accounts and other supporting scriptures. :)

What do you mean by "an accepted sign of the occurrence"? Do you mean the "only accepted sign of the occurrence"? or something else?

[jfrog]

You're so...excited, jfrog. LOL!!! You're exactly correct; I believe that since the Bible mentions (or implies) tongues almost every time a person was filled with the Holy Ghost that it can be an accepted sign of the occurrence.

I feel the same way about Baptism in Jesus' name; even though accounts sometimes say in the "name of the Lord", I still believe that we should be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, based on all of the accounts and other supporting scriptures. :)

One other question: If you knew someone that had been baptized "in the name of the Lord" would you believe they hadn't really been baptized because the baptism was done without the "accepted phrase"? I don't think you would. So why would you believe someone hasn't really received the Holy Ghost until they manifest the "accepted sign"?

[MissBrattified]

What do you mean by "an accepted sign of the occurrence"? Do you mean the "only accepted sign of the occurrence"? or something else?

*sigh* I have had this conversation with PO. I don't really like to have it, since I do feel that, from scriptural accounts, tongues were likely the initial sign. However, it also mentions that they spoke the Word with boldness, prophesied, and also that they spoke in tongues as in other languages, rather than a "new tongue." Also, scripture mentions "stammering lips", but for some reason that "sign" seems to be discounted or minimized. THAT is why I say that speaking in tongues is A sign of receiving the Holy Ghost, but according to scriptural accounts, it doesn't seem to be the ONLY sign.

What I'm not sure about is whether one of those signs or all of them is necessary for determining whether the Holy Ghost has fallen. Which leads me further to say that "by their fruits you shall know them" is a better measure in the long run than whatever happens at conversion.

I'm not convinced enough to say that if you don't speak in tongues you definitely haven't received the Holy Ghost, I'll put it that way. I don't feel qualified to make that judgment. When I was filled with the Holy Ghost, I spoke in tongues. When my daughters received the Holy Ghost, they spoke in tongues. It's been our experience. I'm not interested in discounting the experiences or testimonies of other Christians. However, I do NOT believe you are filled with the Holy Ghost simply by repenting and being baptized without any outward signs. Scriptural accounts refer to being filled with the Holy Ghost as a separate experience from repentance and baptism. I do believe that outward signs of some sort, including, but not limited to tongues, will occur when someone is filled with the Holy Ghost.

[jfrog]

What do you mean by "an accepted sign of the occurrence"? Do you mean the "only accepted sign of the occurrence"? or something else?

MissB, maybe I should ask my question this way: Do you say that everyone of those who have not spoken in tongues do not have the Holy Ghost?

If you don't say that then my arguments don't apply to your beliefs. :)

[jfrog]

*sigh* I have had this conversation with PO. I don't really like to have it, since I do feel that, from scriptural accounts, tongues were likely the initial sign. However, it also mentions that they spoke the Word with boldness, prophesied, and also that they spoke in tongues as in other languages, rather than a "new tongue." Also, scripture mentions "stammering lips", but for some reason that "sign" seems to be discounted or minimized. THAT is why I say that speaking in tongues is A sign of receiving the Holy Ghost, but according to scriptural accounts, it doesn't seem to be the ONLY sign.

What I'm not sure about is whether one of those signs or all of them is necessary for determining whether the Holy Ghost has fallen. Which leads me further to say that "by their fruits you shall know them" is a better measure in the long run than whatever happens at conversion.

I'm not convinced enough to say that if you don't speak in tongues you definitely haven't received the Holy Ghost, I'll put it that way. I don't feel qualified to make that judgment. When I was filled with the Holy Ghost, I spoke in tongues. When my daughters received the Holy Ghost, they spoke in tongues. It's been our experience. I'm not interested in discounting the experiences or testimonies of other Christians.

:) Okay. Then we pretty much agree.

So why are you against my argument that apostolics believing Paul received the Holy Ghost while he was there with Anaias breaks the pattern of tongues always being mentioned when someone receives the Holy Ghost (and thus also breaks tongues being the ONLY initial evidence doctrine which is built upon tongues always being mentioned or implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost in the bible)?

[MissBrattified]

MissB, maybe I should ask my question this way: Do you say that everyone of those who have not spoken in tongues do not have the Holy Ghost?

No, I won't make that definite statement. I do believe that there will be an outward sign when you receive the Holy Ghost. Something that other Christians will bear witness to. Whether that's tongues and/or something else, I can't say for sure.

If you don't say that then my arguments don't apply to your beliefs. :)

Whose beliefs do they apply to? I don't know anyone who touts that tongues were mentioned everytime someone was filled with the Holy Ghost in the NT. Do you? Did someone on the forum mention that, and you want to address them directly? Maybe I missed something.

[MissBrattified]

:) Okay. Then we pretty much agree.

So why are you against my argument that apostolics believing Paul received the Holy Ghost while he was there with Anaias breaks the pattern of tongues always being mentioned when someone receives the Holy Ghost (and thus also breaks tongues being the ONLY initial evidence doctrine which is built upon tongues always being mentioned or implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost in the bible)?

I'm not opposing your argument; I'm opposing the premise that you've projected onto the opposing argument. LOL!!!! :D

I don't know anyone who believes or teaches what you purport as the basis for the "tongues as the only [valid] initial evidence" doctrine.

[jfrog]

No, I won't make that definite statement. I do believe that there will be an outward sign when you receive the Holy Ghost. Something that other Christians will bear witness to. Whether that's tongues and/or something else, I can't say for sure.



Whose beliefs do they apply to? I don't know anyone who touts that tongues were mentioned everytime someone was filled with the Holy Ghost in the NT. Do you? Did someone on the forum mention that, and you want to address them directly? Maybe I missed something.

I thought it was general apostolic doctrine that tongues were the only evidence of the Holy Ghost and I thought that the doctrine was derived from there being tongues in every account of someone receiving the Holy Ghost, which I have been arguing is untrue because of the Paul in Acts 9 and those people believing he received the Holy Ghost at that time.

[jfrog]

I'm not opposing your argument; I'm opposing the premise that you've projected onto the opposing argument. LOL!!!! :D

I don't know anyone who believes or teaches what you purport as the basis for the "tongues as the only [valid] initial evidence" doctrine.

Okay then I may be wrong about such people... so what do they say the basis is for the doctrine of tongues being the only [valid] initial evidence of the Holy Ghost?

[freeatlast]

I believe Paul recieved God's spirit when he declared Jesus Lord on the Damascus road.

I believe Paul at some point later had the experience of having God's spirit "fall upon" him. At that time he manifested one of the gifts, tongues. I think he also recieved the gift of wisdom. ;-)

[mfblume]

Ok, someone has said that receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the Spirit is one in the same...not so. Scripture: "And the babe leaped in her womb and she (Elizabeth) was filled with the Holy Ghost".

I just showed where the Acts 2:4 experience was called receiving the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost poured out and the holy Ghost baptism. In order to respond to my note, please take the parts where you think I missed logic and interpretation and explain the proper manner. When the terms receiving the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit are shown to refer to the same thing, then there is no argument.

Anything about the Holy Ghost experience before the cross was not the same experience as what happened after the cross. John 7:37-39 says the Holy Ghost was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified. Not only that, but he Holy Ghost in Acts 2 was said to have occurred because Jesus resurrected and sat at the right hand throne. His seating shed forth what they saw and heard. That did nto obviously happen when John was in the womb.

So explain to me why Acts 2:4 experience was called a FILLING of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit and reception of the Spirit. You totally glossed over everything I wrote. Quote my words and show where my reasoning is in error.

The following shows that what they experienced in Acts 2 was that they "received the Holy Ghost" and it was with tongues.

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

So how in the world can receiving the Holy Ghost be different than Baptism of the Holy Ghost when the apostles called the Acts 2:4 experience "receiving the Holy Ghost"?

[Praxeas]

I believe Paul recieved God's spirit when he declared Jesus Lord on the Damascus road.

I believe Paul at some point later had the experience of having God's spirit "fall upon" him. At that time he manifested one of the gifts, tongues. I think he also recieved the gift of wisdom. ;-)2 believes and 1 think. Do I hear 2 thinks? 2 Thinks? No? 1 think going once. 1 think going twice... Sold to the man with 2 believes and 1 think

[mfblume]

Ah, but still the grammar is not future tense. It's conditional of "Lay on hands"

In other words this happening will take place when he lays hands on Paul. There is no grammar to suggest a later future date after laying hands

I did not say there was.

[mfblume]

I believe Paul recieved God's spirit when he declared Jesus Lord on the Damascus road.

I believe Paul at some point later had the experience of having God's spirit "fall upon" him. At that time he manifested one of the gifts, tongues. I think he also recieved the gift of wisdom. ;-)

Impossible due to my post right after your own.

[Praxeas]

I did not say there was.
You said it was future tense

[mfblume]

You said it was future tense

Future from the point of Ananias' words, thereby pointing to the laying on of hands to facilitate it. Others said Paul had the Spirit on the road to Damascus.

[Praxeas]

Future from the point of Ananias' words, thereby pointing to the laying on of hands to facilitate it. Others said Paul had the Spirit on the road to Damascus.
Oh

[wittenberg]

Ok, so in answer to your question: John 1 says..."As many as receive him, to them he gives the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name...which are born (again)..of God". Simply put..the Holy Ghost is Christ, right? If yes, then when we receive Christ (John 1) we receive the Holy Ghost.
So explain to me why Acts 2:4 experience was called a FILLING of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit and reception of the Spirit. (Mike's words) But this simultaneous experience did not happen with Saul. Saul received God's Spirit without speaking in tongues and later confirmed this in his testimony. Where Mike did Paul ever say: I spoke in tongues. Yes, he said that he did in his letters to the Church but not in his personal testimony which he shared at least 3 times.
Its like C.B. Dudley, who went to the wood shed and kneeled at an old lard bucket. You know his testimony...he said God I need you, please forgive me...and he walked out of the shed and said: I'm saved, I'm saved. And yes, we all know he was an Acts 2:38 preacher, but like Paul, his conversion experience was instant and miraculous and it involved the impartation of God's spirit into his heart, wherby we cry: Jesus you are Lord!
This is what Paul said: I was on a road, God showed himself to me....

[Scott Hutchinson]

I believe Paul received the Holy Ghost when Ananias laid hands on him. And I believe he spoke with tongues. I do not think tongues had to be mentioned every time people received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. Acts is a historical account. We read the Jews spoke in tongues in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 and John's disciples in Acts 19. Many non-pentecostal Scholars agree that Acts 8 and the Samaritans involved speaking in tongues as well since they saw miracles and devils cast out, but something apart from that caused Simon to "SEE" that laying on of hands caused the people to receive the Holy Ghost. Once this has been established amongst the various ethnic and distinct groups of people, it need not be mentioned again every time someone is said to have received the Spirit.

And the bottom line is, as jfrog and I already discussed months ago, that it is not plainly explicit anywhere in the Bible that Acts 2 had people receive both Spirit Baptism as well indwelling of the Spirit (as though they were two different experiences), any more than it is plainly explicit that everyone who is Spirit baptized speaks in tongues. To me, the principle of Occam's razor makes it more sensible to conclude that Spirit indwelling and Spirit Baptism are one and the same experience.

So the bottom line is one will find what one WANTS to find in order to confirm one's bent on the issue in all these accounts, including Paul's experience

:D :thumbsup

[jfrog]

Ok, so in answer to your question: John 1 says..."As many as receive him, to them he gives the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name...which are born (again)..of God". Simply put..the Holy Ghost is Christ, right? If yes, then when we receive Christ (John 1) we receive the Holy Ghost.
So explain to me why Acts 2:4 experience was called a FILLING of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit and reception of the Spirit. (Mike's words) But this simultaneous experience did not happen with Saul. Saul received God's Spirit without speaking in tongues and later confirmed this in his testimony. Where Mike did Paul ever say: I spoke in tongues. Yes, he said that he did in his letters to the Church but not in his personal testimony which he shared at least 3 times.
Its like C.B. Dudley, who went to the wood shed and kneeled at an old lard bucket. You know his testimony...he said God I need you, please forgive me...and he walked out of the shed and said: I'm saved, I'm saved. And yes, we all know he was an Acts 2:38 preacher, but like Paul, his conversion experience was instant and miraculous and it involved the impartation of God's spirit into his heart, wherby we cry: Jesus you are Lord!
This is what Paul said: I was on a road, God showed himself to me....

You are incorrect. The bible doesn't record Saul speaking in tongues upon receiving the Holy Ghost is as much as you can say. That does not necessarily mean he did not speak in tongues, only that he is not recorded as speaking in tongues.

[Digging4Truth]

Saul received God's Spirit without speaking in tongues and later confirmed this in his testimony.

I would be interested in knowing what scriptures you are referring to where Paul confirmed later in his testimony that he received God's Spirit without speaking in tongues.

Thanks.

[mfblume]

Ok, so in answer to your question: John 1 says..."As many as receive him, to them he gives the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name...which are born (again)..of God". Simply put..the Holy Ghost is Christ, right? If yes, then when we receive Christ (John 1) we receive the Holy Ghost.


You did it again! You once again glossed over my thoughts and did not quote my words and show the error in my reasoning and provide what is the correct reasoning.

I showed you plainly in the scriptures where RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST is the same thing as BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, which you claimed were two separate experiences. Instead of explaining why the scriptures said that but did not mean what I claimed they meant, you go to a totally different passage and leave my passages untouched.

So you DID NOT answer my question.

So explain to me why Acts 2:4 experience was called a FILLING of the Spirit and Baptism of the Spirit and reception of the Spirit. (Mike's words) But this simultaneous experience did not happen with Saul.

As jfrog said, you are wrong. Just because the passage did not say it happened does not mean it did not happen. Again, I showed you that baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:4 is called INFILLING, RECEIVING and POURING OUT of the Spirit. You claimed receiving is not the same thing as baptism. So rather than run all around creation to pother passages of scripture, please answer me why the bible stated the experiences are synonymous.

Saul received God's Spirit without speaking in tongues and later confirmed this in his testimony. Where Mike did Paul ever say: I spoke in tongues. Yes, he said that he did in his letters to the Church but not in his personal testimony which he shared at least 3 times.
Who said he had to detail every experience in his testimony? The fact is you are dodging the issue of my response to your claim that receiving the Spirit is different from baptism of the Spirit. Now, once again, please deal with it this time, why did the apostles claim RECEIVING THE SPIRIT was the same thing as BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT if you claim they are two different experiences?

Its like C.B. Dudley, who went to the wood shed and kneeled at an old lard bucket. You know his testimony...he said God I need you, please forgive me...and he walked out of the shed and said: I'm saved, I'm saved. And yes, we all know he was an Acts 2:38 preacher, but like Paul, his conversion experience was instant and miraculous and it involved the impartation of God's spirit into his heart, wherby we cry: Jesus you are Lord!
This is what Paul said: I was on a road, God showed himself to me....

I remember old C.B. well! But let's get back to the topic at hand that you initiated. Why did you say receiving the Spirit is not baptism of the Spirit when the apostles said it was in the verses I quoted?

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

If a=b=c then a=c and b=a and b=c.

[Praxeas]

Paul DID speak in tongues. It just does not say in Acts he did. Read Corinthians

[jfrog]

Paul DID speak in tongues. It just does not say in Acts he did. Read Corinthians

But him saying he spoke in tongues in Corinthians does not imply that he spoke in tongues upon receiving the Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

But him saying he spoke in tongues in Corinthians does not imply that he spoke in tongues upon receiving the Holy Ghost.
Isn't that what I said?

[Hoovie]

Can someone have the gift of tongues and not have spoken in tongues at initial conversion? How about the gift of healing, or word of Knowledge and not have ever spoken in tongues??

[jfrog]

Can someone have the gift of tongues and not have spoken in tongues at initial conversion? How about the gift of healing, or word of Knowledge and not have ever spoken in tongues??

The answer to your question hinges on the answer to my question. Does your belief that Paul received the Holy Ghost in Acts 9 with no mention or implication of tongues destroy the pattern that tongues are always mentioned or strongly implied when someone receives the Holy Ghost in the Bible?