View Full Version : Need the HG speaking in tongues to be saved
Amanah
10-04-2011, 04:56 PM
reading Romans chapter 8 atm
It says anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
We need his Spirit to be raised from the dead in the resurrection. Also, we have to be led by the Spirit of God to be a son of God.
I think we need the HG to be saved. I think we know we have the HG because we spoke in tongues. But after that, we have to be led by the Spirit of God to overcome the deeds of the flesh to stay saved.
How can 3 steppers change their minds and become 1 steppers? do they think that you receive two different kinds of the Spirit of God? one to be saved and another to be filled?
freeatlast
10-04-2011, 04:59 PM
Good to know what you think. Jehovahs witnesses think...Mormons think....
Amanah
10-04-2011, 05:59 PM
Good to know what you think. Jehovahs witnesses think...Mormons think....
whatever
Hoovie
10-04-2011, 06:45 PM
Amanah, Converts to One Step thought do not believe salvation occurrs apart from the Holy Spirit. In fact it must be recognized the Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of all who come to Christ.
MrsMcD
10-04-2011, 07:26 PM
I do not believe you have to speak in tongues to be saved.
houston
10-04-2011, 07:37 PM
PCI Lite
Scott Hutchinson
10-04-2011, 07:43 PM
The way I see it,there is no difference in receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized with The Holy Ghost.I don't see a distinction between the two. If I understand 1 COR. 12:13 it is by one Spirit we are baptized into the body of Christ.
Norman
10-04-2011, 09:44 PM
Anyone who studies Acts chapters 2, 10, and 11 should see that various expressions are used to refer to the same experience. There is no scripture that says the Spirit "baptism" is different from receiving the Holy Ghost. The Bible does not teach that there are two classes of Christians; some Spirit-filled, some not. However, if you have really received the Holy Ghost, the fruit of the Spirit should be evident in your life.
Orthodoxy
10-04-2011, 10:11 PM
Amanah, Converts to One Step thought do not believe salvation occurrs apart from the Holy Spirit. In fact it must be recognized the Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of all who come to Christ.
Exactly.
I believe that anyone who genuinely receives Jesus by faith as Lord and Savior can only do so if the Spirit is working in his heart. At the point of conversion, he is "indwelt" by the Spirit.
However, there can be subsequent "fillings" or "baptisms" in the Spirit after their conversion. I do not believe that tongues are a requirement for salvation.
Amanah
10-05-2011, 04:27 AM
Exactly.
I believe that anyone who genuinely receives Jesus by faith as Lord and Savior can only do so if the Spirit is working in his heart. At the point of conversion, he is "indwelt" by the Spirit.
However, there can be subsequent "fillings" or "baptisms" in the Spirit after their conversion. I do not believe that tongues are a requirement for salvation.
without the HG seal of approval (tongues as evidence) the deal is off.
the HG seals the deal.
kclee4jc
10-05-2011, 04:44 AM
stay steadfast amanah :-)
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 07:31 AM
without the HG seal of approval (tongues as evidence) the deal is off.
the HG seals the deal.
There is no mention of tongues as an evidence of spirit baptism in scripture. I see nothing mentioned by any apostle, teacher, or Jesus that mentions this. There are three or four instances where people receive the Holy Ghost and that happened over a very long period of years and years. Each time tongues was mentioned is was because this was a new people group who were receiving the spirit and each time there was an apostle present. Other than those instances, there is no other mention in scripture of tongues ever accompanying the Holy Spirit and many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were saved. If fact, the whole world changed and the gospel spread like wildfire and there is no mention of people seeking this evidence.
Amanah, the AOG, COG, and most other pentecostal groups teach that the spirit baptism is subsequent and a "second blessing" after being indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion. The idea that the "initial evidence" was required for receiving the holy spirit has not been a widespread teaching of pentecostalism.
This all started with the holiness methodist who taught of a second blessing that happened after conversion called "entire sanctification" Many of these folks carried that idea over to the new movement that was the beginning of pentecostalism. They taught of a second blessing called the "baptism of the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues" that was for empowerment or for the gifts. There was later a split between the holiness methodist and the "baptism of the holy ghost" folks and that split resulted in the beginning of the pentecostal movement. The pentecostals didn't want there to be a "third" blessing because that was just getting way to far from scripture. I think this was around the time that the AOG was formed.
This is all documented and once you trace the roots and the thinking of the people during that time period it is very easy to see how folks were looking for a power that would prove that they were the "real" christians.
We cannot just accept that the baptism of the holy ghost IS the same as the indwelling of the holy spirit at conversion. Even among pentecostals it never was meant to be believed that way.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 07:39 AM
Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Luke 24:49 "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."
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."
scotty
10-05-2011, 07:46 AM
I do not believe you have to speak in tongues to be saved.
Nobody believes that.
I do not believe that tongues are a requirement for salvation.
And again, nobody has made this statement.
stay steadfast amanah :-)
Agreed :thumbsup Hold true to your convictions.
Amanah, here is the twist your going to run into here on the forum. People like me and you and kclee and others believe that speaking in tongues is "evidence" of one being baptized in the Spirit. As you see from the statements quoted above, some will twist that around to make it look like you believe that the "speaking in tongues" is "salvational", when its not, its the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
While some here, such as Delta, will legitimatly debate whether tongues is evidence or not, others will try to box you in and brand you with "tongues = salvation". Don't fall for it.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 07:59 AM
[B]Agreed :thumbsup Hold true to your convictions.
Amanah, here is the twist your going to run into here on the forum. People like me and you and kclee and others believe that speaking in tongues is "evidence" of one being baptized in the Spirit. As you see from the statements quoted above, some will twist that around to make it look like you believe that the "speaking in tongues" is "salvational", when its not, its the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
While some here, such as Delta, will legitimatly debate whether tongues is evidence or not, others will try to box you in and brand you with "tongues = salvation". Don't fall for it.
That's a fine line, IMO, Scotty.
If you have NOT the spirit of Christ, you are none of His. (Romans 8:9)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: (John 16:13)
It looks like a salvational issue to me. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. Tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't see how we are able to separate the two. Actually, I've never understood that.
I believe that you cannot be saved without the Word and without His Spirit. The Spirit leads and guides, the Word sets you free.
On another note, the "second blessing" view is totally bogus and has no scripture to support it.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:07 AM
Nobody believes that.
And again, nobody has made this statement.
Agreed :thumbsup Hold true to your convictions.
Amanah, here is the twist your going to run into here on the forum. People like me and you and kclee and others believe that speaking in tongues is "evidence" of one being baptized in the Spirit. As you see from the statements quoted above, some will twist that around to make it look like you believe that the "speaking in tongues" is "salvational", when its not, its the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
While some here, such as Delta, will legitimatly debate whether tongues is evidence or not, others will try to box you in and brand you with "tongues = salvation". Don't fall for it.
Scotty, it looks to me like Amanah is calling the holy spirit AND baptism of the holy spirit the same thing. While I could agree, I am on a totally opposite side of the argument.
I just wanted to bring up the point that very few pentecostals believe that holy ghost indwelling and holy ghost baptism are the same thing.
Holy Ghost baptism has always been seen as a second blessing among most in the pentecostal world. However, among pentecostal three-steppers they do not make a distinction between the two and require "tongues" as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit and therefore a REQUIREMENT for new birth.
Here is a great debate by David Bernard and one of my favorite calvinist debators, James White. DB lays out his position that is very similar to Amanah's. There are five videos total.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx-bDZLTTcQ&feature=related
I am very familiar with Amanah's position because I believed the same thing for 27 years.
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:09 AM
That's a fine line, IMO, Scotty.
If you have NOT the spirit of Christ, you are none of His. (Romans 8:9)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: (John 16:13)
It looks like a salvational issue to me. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. Tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't see how we are able to separate the two. Actually, I've never understood that.
On another note, the "second blessing" view is totally bogus and has no scripture to support it.
I'm sure you don't understand what I am saying as we have usually agreed on this topic in the past.
My belief is that one must recieve the Holy Ghost to be saved. A sign or "evidence" of one recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in other tongues.
My point was that what some here attempt to do is turn it around to say that "speaking in tongues" is the catalyst for salvation. They like to say that we encourage others to pray or seek "tongues" for salvation when in fact we encourage others to pray or seek the "Holy Ghost". Tongues will come as a "result" of being filled.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 08:12 AM
Scotty, it looks to me like Amanah is calling the holy spirit AND baptism of the holy spirit the same thing. While I could agree, I am on a totally opposite side of the argument.
Yes, that is how I view it as well.
I just wanted to bring up the point that very few pentecostals believe that holy ghost indwelling and holy ghost baptism are the same thing.
But, Delta, what difference does that really make? It really is and should be - what does the Word of God say about it?
My husband was raised with the "second blessing" teaching (COG) and today he believes that teaching is erroneous.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 08:16 AM
I'm sure you don't understand what I am saying as we have usually agreed on this topic in the past.
My belief is that one must recieve the Holy Ghost to be saved. A sign or "evidence" of one recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in other tongues.
My point was that what some here attempt to do is turn it around to say that "speaking in tongues" is the catalyst for salvation. They like to say that we encourage others to pray or seek "tongues" for salvation when in fact we encourage others to pray or seek the "Holy Ghost". Tongues will come as a "result" of being filled.
Okay,, yes, I understand you now. This is how I explain that - We don't teach to seek the gift, but seek the Giver. Seeking the Giver will result in receiving the gift. That's how I explain it. Are we on the same page?
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:17 AM
That's a fine line, IMO, Scotty.
If you have NOT the spirit of Christ, you are none of His. (Romans 8:9)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: (John 16:13)
It looks like a salvational issue to me. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. Tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't see how we are able to separate the two. Actually, I've never understood that.
I believe that you cannot be saved without the Word and without His Spirit. The Spirit leads and guides, the Word sets you free.
On another note, the "second blessing" view is totally bogus and has no scripture to support it.
I would agree that it is totally bogus but not nearly as bogus as the "initial evidence" doctrine.
To me, the best way to characterize it is to say that we receive the Holy Spirit at conversion or new birth (yes some folks connect this to speaking in tongues but if you come to my church you will meet many people who have the holy spirit who have never spoke in tongues) and that the gifts of the spirit are available today in a believers life. That may include tongues, teaching, word of knowledge, gift of healing, ministry, etc.
There is no normative experience in teh new testament that points to tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. This is why the pentecostals of old always tied speaking in tongues in with "the baptism" because in their mind that is separate from the infilling of the holy spirit.
Amanah
10-05-2011, 08:22 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 08:27 AM
I would agree that it is totally bogus but not nearly as bogus as the "initial evidence" doctrine.
To me, the best way to characterize it is to say that we receive the Holy Spirit at conversion or new birth (yes some folks connect this to speaking in tongues but if you come to my church you will meet many people who have the holy spirit who have never spoke in tongues) and that the gifts of the spirit are available today in a believers life. That may include tongues, teaching, word of knowledge, gift of healing, ministry, etc.
There is no normative experience in teh new testament that points to tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. This is why the pentecostals of old always tied speaking in tongues in with "the baptism" because in their mind that is separate from the infilling of the holy spirit.
Well, I certainly don't agree with you. If God shows me something else, I'll get back with you on it. LOL!
God has been timely and very precise on every minute detail from the beginning. I don't see there being two views of anything in the Word, i.e. steps or second blessing, etc.
IMO, these things are contrived by men who cannot figure out what God is doing, come to the last frontier and cannot walk by faith and so they stop and form a religion and/or religious belief to explain it all - from their perspective.
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:28 AM
Okay,, yes, I understand you now. This is how I explain that - We don't teach to seek the gift, but seek the Giver. Seeking the Giver will result in receiving the gift. That's how I explain it. Are we on the same page?
:highfive
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:29 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
:thumbsup
berkeley
10-05-2011, 08:31 AM
Amanah,
the argument is that the bible does not say that a person will speak in tongues when they receive the holy ghost.
MrsMcD
10-05-2011, 08:32 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
Are you saying that the only way you can have the Holy Ghost is by tongues?
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 08:37 AM
:highfive
:highfive
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 08:38 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
:thumbsup :thumbsup
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:41 AM
Yes, that is how I view it as well.
But, Delta, what difference does that really make? It really is and should be - what does the Word of God say about it?
My husband was raised with the "second blessing" teaching (COG) and today he believes that teaching is erroneous.
I agree. The problem is that we all are reading the same bible and come to different conclusions for a variety of reasons.
If I believed that tongues was the actual evidence of the Holy Spirit then I would believe the way you do too. I cannot believe in the second blessing stuff and is the reason why I distance myself from all pentecostals not just oneness. I believe the second blessing doctrine leads to a bunch of mess up folks trying to become more and more spiritual based on their works.
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:41 AM
Are you saying that the only way you can have the Holy Ghost is by tongues?
See, here we go. No.
The only way you can have the Holy Ghost is by the grace of God. Our belief is that when one is filled with the Holy Ghost they will speak in other tongues.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:43 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
Do you have any scriptural evidence?
Amanah
10-05-2011, 08:45 AM
Do you have any scriptural evidence?
I am at work atm, I will provide scripture as soon as I am able.
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:48 AM
Do you have any scriptural evidence?
Are we really going to go there ? Yes, there is scripture that makes it evident to us. Just as there is scripture that makes your opinion evident to you. :highfive
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:48 AM
Well, I certainly don't agree with you. If God shows me something else, I'll get back with you on it. LOL!
God has been timely and very precise on every minute detail from the beginning. I don't see there being two views of anything in the Word, i.e. steps or second blessing, etc.
IMO, these things are contrived by men who cannot figure out what God is doing, come to the last frontier and cannot walk by faith and so they stop and form a religion and/or religious belief to explain it all - from their perspective.
PO, why is it that you think you have some greater knowledge or understanding than others? This is what I constantly run into with pentecostals that it doesn't matter what proof they are shown it all comes down to the revelation that God has given them or their experience. I have no reason to be against the "initial evidence" doctrine. I believed it my whole life but mainly because I had been in an environment where I had seen many things with my own eyes that I couldn't explain away easily.
Just using the language that says, "if God shows me something else" would worry me. We are to study and learn from the scripture not from our heart and emotions.
I believe you are sincere and from all your post that I have read I would consider you a christian and saved.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:50 AM
Are we really going to go there ? Yes, there is scripture that makes it evident to us. Just as there is scripture that makes your opinion evident to you. :highfive
Well, lets see. The argument is very weak based on scripture alone.
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:51 AM
Just using the language that says, "if God shows me something else" would worry me. We are to study and learn from the scripture not from our heart and emotions.
I disagree. Isn't this how it is supposed to be ? Didn't God say we would no longer learn from our father or brother but God would indwell us and reveal the truth in our hearts ?
scotty
10-05-2011, 08:52 AM
Well, lets see. The argument is very weak based on scripture alone.
As is yours, which is why these threads never result in anything good.
mfblume
10-05-2011, 08:55 AM
The bible says in Acts 10 that the Jewish believers knew the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost (evidence) because they heard them speak with tongues. Since it was the first tell-tale indication it is called INITIAL evidence. It was never said to be ONGOING EVIDENCE. FRUIT of the Spirit is ongoing evidence. Although they also heard the gentiles magnifying God, tongues was the one thing common in instances where we are given information as to what occurred when people were Spirit filled.
You guys know this is our answer. Why encompass this same old same old mountain all the time? If you disagree, then fine. But you already know why we believe this. No other verse in the entire bible so closely refers to what occurs immediately upon Spirit Baptism as this.
In Acts 15:8, the Jewish believers repeated the same thing saying what they experienced in Acts 2 was experienced by the Gentiles in Acts 10. They meant TONGUES. TONGUES and MAGNIFYING GOD were the evidence. Now, everyone knows you do not necessarily have the Holy Ghost just because you magnify God. Sinners can magnify God. So tongues are in focus here.
berkeley
10-05-2011, 08:56 AM
DELTA,
it's IMPLICIT, get with the program!
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 08:58 AM
As is yours, which is why these threads never result in anything good.
They result in a lot of good. Maybe not to the people arguing back and forth but I meet and I have worked with many people who have come out of pentecostalism. Many of them, including myself, once believed very strongly about certain things.
My former pastor has led hundreds out and I have walked beside many friends and we have discussed and worked through these issues with one another. We had so many issues and problems and I look back on that group and I see strong christian believers and people who have come through a lot to get out of pentecosalism.
Scotty, there are good folks and good things in pentecost. I know both the good and bad side of pentecost. While I can accept them as brothers and sisters I cannot be a part of them and their beliefs because I don't believe them. It is as simple as that.
berkeley
10-05-2011, 08:59 AM
oh, oh, new term, new term, the IMPLICIT INITIAL EVIDENCE DOCTRINE!
scotty
10-05-2011, 09:00 AM
DELTA,
it's IMPLICIT, get with the program!
oh my geezz, lol. wonder where I have heard that before.:blah
mfblume
10-05-2011, 09:00 AM
DELTA,
it's IMPLICIT, get with the program!
Acts 10:46 is not implicit. ;)
Acts 10:45-46 KJV 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. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 15:8 KJV And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
berkeley
10-05-2011, 09:05 AM
Mike, Have you read that in the NLT?
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 09:05 AM
PO, why is it that you think you have some greater knowledge or understanding than others? This is what I constantly run into with pentecostals that it doesn't matter what proof they are shown it all comes down to the revelation that God has given them or their experience. I have no reason to be against the "initial evidence" doctrine. I believed it my whole life but mainly because I had been in an environment where I had seen many things with my own eyes that I couldn't explain away easily.
Delta, I have had a tremendous experience with God. Something that no man can take away. It would be too long to tell and too emotional and I don't think any one would care anyway. lol
I remember one incident when it was almost morning, I was still in bed and I heard a woman's voice ask, "Who is the father, who is the son, who is the Holy Ghost?" and a man's voice answered, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given and his name shall be called...." That was a very awesome and powerful experience in my life.
He also uses me in the gifts and so I, possibly, have and always will have a different perspective. On that note, I don't have to have the Board approve a message before I can deliver the interpretation after tongues is given. ;)
On two occasions that I can remember, God pressed me to study a subject the night before a discussion was started on this very forum. The scriptures he gave me totally refuted what someone was trying to show as truth. Me, having no prior knowledge that the topics would even be discussed. If you don't think that is awesome, well I do.
Just using the language that says, "if God shows me something else" would worry me. We are to study and learn from the scripture not from our heart and emotions.
I believe you are sincere and from all your post that I have read I would consider you a christian and saved.
Delta, I believe that when people say, "if God shows me something else", that means He shows you in the Word - that connection with your Spirit and His Spirit coupled with the Word. There is no mistaking that combination. I don't believe anything I have embraced is off the mark concerning his Word.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 09:06 AM
The bible says in Acts 10 that the Jewish believers knew the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost (evidence) because they heard them speak with tongues. Since it was the first tell-tale indication it is called INITIAL evidence. It was never said to be ONGOING EVIDENCE. FRUIT of the Spirit is ongoing evidence. Although they also heard the gentiles magnifying God, tongues was the one thing common in instances where we are given information as to what occurred when people were Spirit filled.
You guys know this is our answer. Why encompass this same old same old mountain all the time? If you disagree, then fine. But you already know why we believe this. No other verse in the entire bible so closely refers to what occurs immediately upon Spirit Baptism as this.
In Acts 15:8, the Jewish believers repeated the same thing saying what they experienced in Acts 2 was experienced by the Gentiles in Acts 10. They meant TONGUES. TONGUES and MAGNIFYING GOD were the evidence. Now, everyone knows you do not necessarily have the Holy Ghost just because you magnify God. Sinners can magnify God. So tongues are in focus here.
But you have to admit that to build a whole doctrine on this is shaky. This was the first time that gentiles had received the holy spirit. The Jews didn't know that this could even happen to the gentiles so a sign was given.
Why is this not mentioned anywhere as a command or a normative experience? I really have to have an answer for that. This is only mentioned in Acts in a couple of places.
I just can't understand why you want to hold so strongly to this doctrine?
scotty
10-05-2011, 09:08 AM
They result in a lot of good. Maybe not to the people arguing back and forth but I meet and I have worked with many people who have come out of pentecostalism. Many of them, including myself, once believed very strongly about certain things.
My former pastor has led hundreds out and I have walked beside many friends and we have discussed and worked through these issues with one another. We had so many issues and problems and I look back on that group and I see strong christian believers and people who have come through a lot to get out of pentecosalism.
Scotty, there are good folks and good things in pentecost. I know both the good and bad side of pentecost. While I can accept them as brothers and sisters I cannot be a part of them and their beliefs because I don't believe them. It is as simple as that.
I know Delta, and I understand your point of view, and I respect your opinions and I happily agree to disagree. At the same time the opposite can be said.
I have worked with many and led them to the "something more" they have hungered for. I have seen many who have gone through much just to find something they can feel, not a feel good, same ole same ole church service, but something they found they could take with them. A new life full of joy and peace, something that comes over them that is unexplainable, something they have never felt in a life time of "christian living". Pentecost has shown the many who have lived knowing deep down inside that there has to be more to God that they are missing out on.
I have 3 examples living in my home. :thumbsup
scotty
10-05-2011, 09:13 AM
But you have to admit that to build a whole doctrine on this is shaky. This was the first time that gentiles had received the holy spirit. The Jews didn't know that this could even happen to the gentiles so a sign was given.
Why is this not mentioned anywhere as a command or a normative experience? I really have to have an answer for that. This is only mentioned in Acts in a couple of places.
I just can't understand why you want to hold so strongly to this doctrine?
How many times does it have to be mentioned ? My father rarely had to tell me more than once how something is done. Afterwards, I knew.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 09:17 AM
I know Delta, and I understand your point of view, and I respect your opinions and I happily agree to disagree. At the same time the opposite can be said.
I have worked with many and led them to the "something more" they have hungered for. I have seen many who have gone through much just to find something they can feel, not a feel good, same ole same ole church service, but something they found they could take with them. A new life full of joy and peace, something that comes over them that is unexplainable, something they have never felt in a life time of "christian living". Pentecost has shown the many who have lived knowing deep down inside that there has to be more to God that they are missing out on.
I have 3 examples living in my home. :thumbsup
Yes! I understand that from attending the Baptist Church for a while. I felt so empty and hungry, but I didn't know what I needed.
One night before I went to bed, I held my Bible and said, "God, I have seen the rain, snow, sleet and hail. I know you are mighty and powerful and I know there is something in this book that I do not see."
Shortly thereafter, a woman started working with me who invited me to a Pentecostal church. Then I knew what it was - the Holy Ghost!
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 09:17 AM
How many times does it have to be mentioned ? My father rarely had to tell me more than once how something is done. Afterwards, I knew.
Amen! :thumbsup
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 09:20 AM
Delta, I have had a tremendous experience with God. Something that no man can take away. It would be too long to tell and too emotional and I don't think any one would care anyway. lol
I remember one incident when it was almost morning, I was still in bed and I heard a woman's voice ask, "Who is the father, who is the son, who is the Holy Ghost?" and a man's voice answered, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given and his name shall be called...." That was a very awesome and powerful experience in my life.
He also uses me in the gifts and so I, possibly, have and always will have a different perspective. On that note, I don't have to have the Board approve a message before I can deliver the interpretation after tongues is given. ;)
On two occasions that I can remember, God pressed me to study a subject the night before a discussion was started on this very forum. The scriptures he gave me totally refuted what someone was trying to show as truth. Me, having no prior knowledge that the topics would even be discussed. If you don't think that is awesome, well I do.
Delta, I believe that when people say, "if God shows me something else", that means He shows you in the Word - that connection with your Spirit and His Spirit coupled with the Word. There is no mistaking that combination. I don't believe anything I have embraced is off the mark concerning his Word.
PO, I have no doubt that God uses you in the gifts. This is not about the gifts. I believe along with you. God has shown me things too and there is no way I could have ever left the Apostolic message without him. I am just not that smart or that motivated. :thumbsup
I am not here to change sincere people who are happy and fulfilled in their walk with God. I am here to talk with those who can't make the pentecostal system work for them.
I don't ever question people's experience but I don't have to believe that it is for me either.
I am not sure if you remember the story but the first day we showed up at our new church and I went to the front desk to ask if they had an interpreter for the deaf (my wife is deaf) and they freaked out because a lady was standing not to feet away and had just asked them if they had any deaf people who needed an interpreter. This is a church with probably 3000 people at that service and standing not two feet away was exactly what my wife needed. To me this is a miracle. It confirmed to my wife that God loves her and is watching out for her.
God has placed people and circumstances in my life at just the right moment that radically changed me and the way I thought about God. I can go back and make a huge list of life changing moments that if it hadn't happened that way I may not be where I am today.
Look, I do not know why God had me grow up in pentecostalism until I was 27 or I don't know why he allowed me to suffer to the point I just wanted to check out and give up on religion and everything involved. I don't know why he would let me walk in confusion for so long unless there was a purpose.
mfblume
10-05-2011, 09:22 AM
Mike, Have you read that in the NLT?
No I haven't.
Pressing-On
10-05-2011, 09:25 AM
PO, I have no doubt that God uses you in the gifts. This is not about the gifts. I believe along with you. God has shown me things too and there is no way I could have ever left the Apostolic message without him. I am just not that smart or that motivated. :thumbsup
I am not here to change sincere people who are happy and fulfilled in their walk with God. I am here to talk with those who can't make the pentecostal system work for them.
I don't ever question people's experience but I don't have to believe that it is for me either.
I am not sure if you remember the story but the first day we showed up at our new church and I went to the front desk to ask if they had an interpreter for the deaf (my wife is deaf) and they freaked out because a lady was standing not to feet away and had just asked them if they had any deaf people who needed an interpreter. This is a church with probably 3000 people at that service and standing not two feet away was exactly what my wife needed. To me this is a miracle. It confirmed to my wife that God loves her and is watching out for her.
God has placed people and circumstances in my life at just the right moment that radically changed me and the way I thought about God. I can go back and make a huge list of life changing moments that if it hadn't happened that way I may not be where I am today.
Look, I do not know why God had me grow up in pentecostalism until I was 27 or I don't know why he allowed me to suffer to the point I just wanted to check out and give up on religion and everything involved. I don't know why he would let me walk in confusion for so long unless there was a purpose.
Well, then we really just need to keep ourselves in God and not worry about what others are doing and believing. That is why I don't often get involved in these discussions. Don't know where I will be in five or ten years, but I know where I am right now and I see no other door that God has opened for me.
Enjoyed the discussion. I have to run. I've been putting off boxing up books and moving stuff out of the house for new carpet to be laid. What a pain, but it will be worth it when it's over.
TTYL! Have a great day.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 09:28 AM
I know Delta, and I understand your point of view, and I respect your opinions and I happily agree to disagree. At the same time the opposite can be said.
I have worked with many and led them to the "something more" they have hungered for. I have seen many who have gone through much just to find something they can feel, not a feel good, same ole same ole church service, but something they found they could take with them. A new life full of joy and peace, something that comes over them that is unexplainable, something they have never felt in a life time of "christian living". Pentecost has shown the many who have lived knowing deep down inside that there has to be more to God that they are missing out on.
I have 3 examples living in my home. :thumbsup
I heard the same testimony from people who were raised Methodist, catholic, and even pentecostal this week at baptismal service. I have a very close friend who was raised baptist who found God at the UPC church that I grew up in.
I can't explain why God moves on people and they find him in such places.
My hope is that we can preach the cross and him crucified. Lets preach that Jesus was sent to save the lost and to bind up the brokenhearted. Let show people that they need to repent of their sins and turn toward Christ as their sacrifice. Let us proclaim to them that God has made us his righteousness though the sacrifice of the lamb. Lets stay focused on the gospel and people will be saved.
If you want to teach people that there are gifts available or they can feel more of God's presence then you won't find me trying to stop you. We need more of God's presence.
But let's get back to the gospel and away from dogma and preach that people must turn their wicked hearts toward God and believe on the one who was sent.
Churches have enough problems even if they stay close to the gospel.
We can argue about the trinity, baptism, baptism of the holy ghost, and all of that and I feel those topics are important but those are side issues compared to the gospel.
berkeley
10-05-2011, 09:33 AM
Acts 10:45-46 NLT
scotty
10-05-2011, 09:33 AM
I heard the same testimony from people who were raised Methodist, catholic, and even pentecostal this week at baptismal service. I have a very close friend who was raised baptist who found God at the UPC church that I grew up in.
I can't explain why God moves on people and they find him in such places.
My hope is that we can preach the cross and him crucified. Lets preach that Jesus was sent to save the lost and to bind up the brokenhearted. Let show people that they need to repent of their sins and turn toward Christ as their sacrifice. Let us proclaim to them that God has made us his righteousness though the sacrifice of the lamb. Lets stay focused on the gospel and people will be saved.
If you want to teach people that there are gifts available or they can feel more of God's presence then you won't find me trying to stop you. We need more of God's presence.
But let's get back to the gospel and away from dogma and preach that people must turn their wicked hearts toward God and believe on the one who was sent.
Churches have enough problems even if they stay close to the gospel.
We can argue about the trinity, baptism, baptism of the holy ghost, and all of that and I feel those topics are important but those are side issues compared to the gospel.
:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup
mfblume
10-05-2011, 09:33 AM
But you have to admit that to build a whole doctrine on this is shaky.
I would agree we cannot be without a bit of a question about it. I stand by it and preach it, but I do not send anyone to hell nor judge them by completely wiping out the idea they cannot have the Spirit within otherwise. I cannot understand why people have to always insist on heaven or hell about these things when the apostles never entered into that aspect of it ever in Acts. Check them out!
This was the first time that gentiles had received the holy spirit. The Jews didn't know that this could even happen to the gentiles so a sign was given.
Agreed. But still it is exactly what happened to the Jews in Acts 2, and there was no such experience with the Jews beforehand for them to look back to and say, "Hey guys, we got the Holy Ghost like the others before us because we spoke in tongues like they did."
Why is this not mentioned anywhere as a command or a normative experience? I really have to have an answer for that. This is only mentioned in Acts in a couple of places.
Many things in the bible are laid out like that. You are Calvinist. yet you believe that man cannot possibly believe unless God chooses certain ones to believe, yet that is never laid out in scripture in that manner either.
But the difference in the tongues issue is that God would not need to lay it out each and every time. Does it not make sense to indicate the first experiences of the Spirit Baptism in minute detail in contrast to having to mention it every other time it occurs afterwards? Once the tone is set, no need to repeat the same details over and over again. You cannot deny that reasoning, too, you know.
So it boils down to something interesting. Why take a chance? Some might think that is a cop-out, but some issues really do fit that category. Why stay as far away from something rather than get all one can get? If one person experienced it, so can you and I.
I just can't understand why you want to hold so strongly to this doctrine?
It's not that I hold so strongly to it, but simply see it makes the most sense scripturally. I am a bible man. I need bible. Experience cannot be the lone foundation. And while I agree it is not so stringently commanded as it could be, I still think what the bible says is enough for me to tell people they will speak in tongues when the Spirit infills them.
Again, you make it appear like the UPC is the only group that thinks this way, when all most all charismatics think this way as well as many other pentecostal groups. The idea that TONGUES is NOT the initial evidence is by far a MINORITY amongst all groups professing to be Spirit filled.
And you really need to rethink your personal experience, becuase, like I said, just because you never spoke in tongues when you sought it does not mean you were not seeking it the wrong way. Fleshly approaches are presented everywhere these days./ And flesh simply will not allow one to get something from God that is genuinely theirs, no matter how sincere a person may be.
So I ask you, why do you so strongly insist tongues are not the initial evidence just because it never happened to you, without thinking perhaps you were going about it in the flesh?
mfblume
10-05-2011, 09:34 AM
Acts 10:45-46 NLT
I see no difference.
berkeley
10-05-2011, 09:35 AM
Acts 10:45-47 NLT
mfblume
10-05-2011, 09:36 AM
Acts 10:45-47 NLT
I see no difference. What do you see that changes the picture? Thanks!
Acts 10:45-47
New Living Translation (NLT)
45 The Jewish believers[a] who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter asked, 47 “Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?”
berkeley
10-05-2011, 09:39 AM
You are right. I may have been thinking of something else. When I get home from work I'll find it for you.
Falla39
10-05-2011, 10:10 AM
Anyone who studies Acts chapters 2, 10, and 11 should see that various expressions are used to refer to the same experience. There is no scripture that says the Spirit "baptism" is different from receiving the Holy Ghost. The Bible does not teach that there are two classes of Christians; some Spirit-filled, some not. However, if you have really received the Holy Ghost, the fruit of the Spirit should be evident in your life.
AMEN, Norman!
I do believe that fruit does not always appear immediately. Go plant a natural
fruit tree. Don't expect to go out the next morning and find fruit. The tree will
be there and in due season, with the proper care, nutrients, water, etc., it
should bear fruit. I would hate to be a fruitless tree, desiring to look good, but
not being useful or good for much!
Look at the Bradford pear tree vs the Bartlett pear tree. Bradford pear trees
has beautiful flowers, etc. for a few days and they fall off. Tiny, knobby little
pears, good for nothing, appears and the brittle branches fall and make a mess.
Really good for nothing of lasting value. But the Bartlett pear tree, year after year,
though it's form becomes worn and doesn't always look like it did when younger,
year after year is loaded with lucious fruit, good for food, and makes a good shade
for weary souls and provides a shade for animals in a pasture.
Falla39
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 10:15 AM
I would agree we cannot be without a bit of a question about it. I stand by it and preach it, but I do not send anyone to hell nor judge them by completely wiping out the idea they cannot have the Spirit within otherwise. I cannot understand why people have to always insist on heaven or hell about these things when the apostles never entered into that aspect of it ever in Acts. Check them out!
Agreed. But still it is exactly what happened to the Jews in Acts 2, and there was no such experience with the Jews beforehand for them to look back to and say, "Hey guys, we got the Holy Ghost like the others before us because we spoke in tongues like they did."
Many things in the bible are laid out like that. You are Calvinist. yet you believe that man cannot possibly believe unless God chooses certain ones to believe, yet that is never laid out in scripture in that manner either.
But the difference in the tongues issue is that God would not need to lay it out each and every time. Does it not make sense to indicate the first experiences of the Spirit Baptism in minute detail in contrast to having to mention it every other time it occurs afterwards? Once the tone is set, no need to repeat the same details over and over again. You cannot deny that reasoning, too, you know.
So it boils down to something interesting. Why take a chance? Some might think that is a cop-out, but some issues really do fit that category. Why stay as far away from something rather than get all one can get? If one person experienced it, so can you and I.
It's not that I hold so strongly to it, but simply see it makes the most sense scripturally. I am a bible man. I need bible. Experience cannot be the lone foundation. And while I agree it is not so stringently commanded as it could be, I still think what the bible says is enough for me to tell people they will speak in tongues when the Spirit infills them.
Again, you make it appear like the UPC is the only group that thinks this way, when all most all charismatics think this way as well as many other pentecostal groups. The idea that TONGUES is NOT the initial evidence is by far a MINORITY amongst all groups professing to be Spirit filled.
And you really need to rethink your personal experience, becuase, like I said, just because you never spoke in tongues when you sought it does not mean you were not seeking it the wrong way. Fleshly approaches are presented everywhere these days./ And flesh simply will not allow one to get something from God that is genuinely theirs, no matter how sincere a person may be.
So I ask you, why do you so strongly insist tongues are not the initial evidence just because it never happened to you, without thinking perhaps you were going about it in the flesh?
I agree that many if not most doctrines are derived from logic or thinking. We have to try to make the whole bible reconcile. Remember, that I backed into this position and did not go seeking to refute the initial evidence doctrine. I first was shaken from my beliefs because of sctipure that I read. It took many many years before I changed my mind. From about 2002 - 2009 was the timeframe from going from a full blown three-stepper to calvinist.
My view of the initial evidence doctrine comes from the idea that we are justified by faith apart from any works. I see clearly in Romans, Galations, and Ephesians this idea that we are saved by FAITH. So, I wrestled with that for years because I knew that seeking after the Holy Ghost was me doing something in order to "get saved". I know this is elementary thinking but this is kind of how it happened. I read that Abraham was justified by faith and for a long time I believed that God would allow me to speak in tongues because just like Abraham I had a promise that I would receive his spirit.
Still, I couldn't get away from the verse that says without the Holy Spirit we are none of His. To me that was very straightfoward. Yet, I still had these other verses that say that I am justified by faith. Well, then I went and read David Bernard who said that we "apply" that faith by following baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. In my mind I was convinced that I had followed the three steps but way down deep inside I knew I wasn't saved. As much as I tried to make the Apostolic message fit with the bible I was having a hard time doing that and being honest with myself. I knew from reading what the scripture said that the Apostolic message had a ton of wholes and for about two years I stopped reading the bible and tried to find answers within the Apostolic movement. Still, I couldn't shake what I had read.
So now that you see my line of thinking you can see that I had to make a decision if we are saved by believing and calling on his name or by "applying faith to our life" as Bernard had stated. Justified means saved and right before God but we can't be right unless we have the Holy Ghost according to scripture. But I still have a ton of scriptures and examples that point that I am not saved by anything I achieve within myself. So I had to believe that I would receive the Holy Ghost upon genuine faith.
Now, during the time that I was going through all this figuring out I wasn't saved. I do not think that I had the Holy Spirit at that time but I was trying to figure it out logically because I wanted to be saved and I loved God even though my love was not pure and was selfish. God was dealing with me.
Finally, God did save me and I fully trusted him. I cannot give you an exact moment but it was either during a sermon or while reading about the gospel that it all hit me and my world came down like a ton of bricks and for the first time in my life I believed and I trusted God. My life changed drastically, my marriage became stronger and I started to lead my family, I became a leader in my church (even though I had the title of leader before) I was just a shell of a person, I had faked out everybody into thinking I was a christian. The people who were walking with me during this time in my life will tell you that I changed drastically. The biggest change was my motives. I started doing the right thing because I was enabled by the spirit to make strong decisions and I did things because of a changed heart. I made friends for the first time in my life and I was able to relate to the hurts and fears of others. I cared about people and for the first time I truly loved others from a different place.
I later became a calvinist and that has led me toward greater understanding of the scripture as a whole. Calvinism was something that I saw in scripture as well but didn't understand all the arguments. I had always been taught free will.
You do hit upon a great point. I was seeking after the holy ghost in the flesh. I wanted God and his blessing but I wasn't born again. At the time I thought my motives were pure but it wasn't until I was really saved that I saw the error of my ways. Still, I don't know how you teach people to receive the Holy Ghost in a way that is not in the flesh.
The only way I would preach to people is to share the gospel and let God do the work. It is the message of the gospel and the Holy Spirit that does the work. I watch my pastor preach every week and there is no alter call and people are saved. Many times I leave and there are a 100 or more people frozen in their sets unable to move who are shaken by the power of the gospel.
If you have not spoken in other tongues as the spirit of God gives utterance, then you are not born again.
period.
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 10:32 AM
If you have not spoken in other tongues as the spirit of God gives utterance, then you are not born again.
period.
It must be nice to hold the keys to God. Just like the catholics of old you couldn't receive salvation unless you got communion from the priest.
You also forgot baptism.
Oh, and must be baptized in Jesus name or will split hell wide open.
:icecream
It must be nice to hold the keys to God. Just like the catholics of old you couldn't receive salvation unless you got communion from the priest.
You also forgot baptism.
Just the keys to the kingdom.:highfive
NotforSale
10-05-2011, 10:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrTWJo7a9l0
Jermyn Davidson
10-05-2011, 11:01 AM
That's a fine line, IMO, Scotty.
If you have NOT the spirit of Christ, you are none of His. (Romans 8:9)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: (John 16:13)
(1) It looks like a salvational issue to me. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. Tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't see how we are able to separate the two. Actually, I've never understood that.
I believe that you cannot be saved without the Word and without His Spirit. The Spirit leads and guides, the Word sets you free.
(2) On another note, the "second blessing" view is totally bogus and has no scripture to support it.
(1) It seemed salvational to me too. As I was raised and believed well into my adult years, if you did not have an initial experience, in-filling of the Holy Ghost, you were not saved until you were filled with the Holy Ghost.
The only sign taught to me to look for when a person is seeking to be filled with the Holy Ghost is that the person filled with the Holy Ghost will speak in tongues.
This is Apostolic doctrine.
(2) What exactly is the "second blessing" doctrine and why or how is it bogus?
deltaguitar
10-05-2011, 11:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrTWJo7a9l0
Borat is standing about two feet away from where I first tried to get the holy ghost. Of course that was back in 1988 and that place looks exactly the same except for the power point screen. Poor Jason Dillon was just doing what he always did at campmeeting.
mfblume
10-05-2011, 11:17 AM
I agree that many if not most doctrines are derived from logic or thinking. We have to try to make the whole bible reconcile. Remember, that I backed into this position and did not go seeking to refute the initial evidence doctrine. I first was shaken from my beliefs because of sctipure that I read. It took many many years before I changed my mind. From about 2002 - 2009 was the timeframe from going from a full blown three-stepper to calvinist.
My view of the initial evidence doctrine comes from the idea that we are justified by faith apart from any works.
But no one said speaking in tongues justifies a person. Most pentecostals are unaware of the doctrine of justification simply because it is not preached much compared to tongues. Most pentecostals stress what makes them different from everyone else, and that is sorta prideful. AND DIFFERENCE IN CHURCHES INCLUDES TONGUES, SO THEY RANT ABOUT TONGUES TOO MUCH, REALLY. But that does not mean tongues are not the evidence of the Spirit baptism either.
It is just rightly dividing the word and realizing what makes us justfied and what regenerates us.
I see clearly in Romans, Galations, and Ephesians this idea that we are saved by FAITH.
Exactly. but true understanding of Spirit baptism does not nullify the truth that faith saves us. Tongues are only a WORK when a person tries to speak them by fleshly effort, not realizing the Spirit gives the utterance, not fleshly desire. So it's apples and oranges to say initial evidence doctrine is wrong because we are saved by faith.
So, I wrestled with that for years because I knew that seeking after the Holy Ghost was me doing something in order to "get saved".
That is what I was trying to tell you. Just because YOU sought it in the wrong placement it has in salvation does not mean seeking the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues is wrong.
You threw out the baby with the bathwater, I think.
I know this is elementary thinking but this is kind of how it happened. I read that Abraham was justified by faith and for a long time I believed that God would allow me to speak in tongues because just like Abraham I had a promise that I would receive his spirit.
Still, I couldn't get away from the verse that says without the Holy Spirit we are none of His. To me that was very straightfoward. Yet, I still had these other verses that say that I am justified by faith. Well, then I went and read David Bernard who said that we "apply" that faith by following baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. In my mind I was convinced that I had followed the three steps but way down deep inside I knew I wasn't saved.
I am glad you saw through some errors you had in your thinking. You certainly had some. But those who properly understand that FAITH is the element that SAVES US ALONE, and who know that such faith actually allows for God to be able to fill us with His Spirit, do speak in tongues because they approached it all it correctly.
You were trying in the flesh to receive the Spirit.
I believe faith is the only thing that saves us. Without faith, baptism is works. Without faith, talking in tongues is an effort of the flesh. But do not throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because you sought tongues and Spirit baptism in more of a works oriented manner than anything else.
Everything you said about justification by faith does not nullify anything I believe about tongues as initial evidence of Spirit baptism.
As much as I tried to make the Apostolic message fit with the bible I was having a hard time doing that and being honest with myself. I knew from reading what the scripture said that the Apostolic message had a ton of wholes and for about two years I stopped reading the bible and tried to find answers within the Apostolic movement.
I never believed the apostolic doctrine the way you claimed you understood it. So I think you had it all wrong. Now, granted, many preachers cannot teach the Word correctly and coherently. They are not teachers. Most never emphasize the issues the bible emphasizes. They major on the minors and minor on the majors. But that does not change the facts. Justification by faith does not conflict with initial evidence doctrine when one understands both the PROPER way.
I think you ought to revisit the initial doctrine concept again now that you have justification straightened out.
In debates here on this forum about this in the past, people told me that most pentecostals focus more on their speaking in tongues than God giving the Spirit. They had to say that because they knew my proposal that God's giving of the Spirit received in faith does not focus on us speaking in tongues. All they could do in order to shoot down initial evidence was to say most pentecostals make the wrong emphasis. Well, there I was proving that not all pentecostals think that way, and they could not relate to that in their criticism.
I argued that EVIDENCE IS NOT CAUSE. They could not argue against that and continued to say that MOST PENTECOSTALS think it is cause, though. That does not change the fact that EVIDENCE IS NOT CAUSE.
I think you and others look at themselves speaking in tongues as CAUSING themselves to be saved. EVIDENCE IS NOT CAUSE, though. As soon as we use the3 term EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost baptism, that takes away any concept of tongues being something we work up in order to be saved. What saves us is the presence of the HOLY GHOST in us. Speaking in tongues does not save us. If tongues are EVIDENCE of the Spirit baptism, and Spirit baptism is part of what saves us, then neither you nor anyone else can accuse us of believing tongues save us. Tongues simply HAPPEN when we experience the saving baptism of the Holy Ghost.
I could not get that through these brethren's heads, and they glossed over my words saying TONGUES DO NOT SAVE as though I believed tongues did save.
Still, I couldn't shake what I had read.
So now that you see my line of thinking you can see that I had to make a decision if we are saved by believing and calling on his name or by "applying faith to our life" as Bernard had stated. Justified means saved and right before God but we can't be right unless we have the Holy Ghost according to scripture.
That is not what Acts 2:38 teaches. It was indeed an answer of what to do to be saved, because the narrative went on to say that those words "WITH MANY OTHER WORDS" were summarized by saying save yourself from this crooked generation/ But Acts 2 teaches repentance, water baptism in Jesus name for remission of sins are what we must do, and God WILL give us the baptism of the Holy Ghost as part of that salvation work. And WE WILL speak in tongues when that happens. We no more give ourselves the Holy Ghost than we cause ourselves to speak in tongues, though. the Holy Ghost is given to us by GOD and HE gives the utterance to speak in tongues.
If someone does not realize this, and they hear more focus on tongues with no explanation required, as so often occurs in Pentecost, then they will mistake that and focus so much on tongues that faith is left out of the picture. that does not mean God will not give everyone the utterance to speak in tongues, though, if their faith is correct.
Those who focus on tongues due to overemphasis upon tongues above faith leave people in a pickle. I think that is what happened to you. Was it your fault? No! But I believe if you could properly see that TONGUES ARE NOT CAUSE of Spirit baptism but EVIDENCE, then you
could take your newly acquired concept of justification by faith and believe for yourself to be Spirit filled and speak in tongues like the rest of us!
But I still have a ton of scriptures and examples that point that I am not saved by anything I achieve within myself. So I had to believe that I would receive the Holy Ghost upon genuine faith.
Right, but that does not say initial evidence doctrine is wrong either. I never received the Holy Ghost through anything but by faith. It actually took me nine months before I was filled with the Holy Ghost talking in tongues BECAUSE I HAD SO MUCH WORKS IN MY HEAD. It hindered me for BELIEVING. I did not get the works from our church, but I was a sinner in the world of will power and a world of do it yourself and be your own God. this world is SELF SELF SELF. the hardest thing for sinners to do is release SELF and not depend upon self effort to be saved.
Why do most people not attend church who believe in God? It is because they think they are not good enough. That is because the concept of WORKS is ingrained in our flesh by nature. We did not get this while we were in the world from religion. We got it from the knowledge of good and evil that Adam put into the human race's human nature. KNOW GOOD AND EVIL TO AVOID EVIL AND DO GOOD. That is ingrained in our natures since Adam's sin! THAT is where we got works from. Churches just simply carry that concept on in their mistaken understanding. So when I came out of the world of "DO IT YOURSELF" and the lost world of sinners that dictated to doing my best to get ahead, and brought that concept with me into the church, God could not give me His Spirit due to all my works-oriented thinking. When I finally LET GO and STOPPED TRYING, then BOOOOM!!!!! I spoke in tongues and received the Spirit!
MORE...
NotforSale
10-05-2011, 11:25 AM
Borat is standing about two feet away from where I first tried to get the holy ghost. Of course that was back in 1988 and that place looks exactly the same except for the power point screen. Poor Jason Dillon was just doing what he always did at campmeeting.
This video is living proof of the nonsense that goes on at Apostolic altars. I have been in numerous services with GG, and his antics are pure entertainment to the emotionally bound in the Oneness Movement.
Also, nowhere does Scripture support conduct of this nature in a Church service. Screaming, yelling, and shaking a person’s head so they will speak in tongues is totally unbiblical.
Yet, we still do it, AND, we tell the World that people who walk away from such altar calls, they are genuinely filled with the Holy Ghost. We point the finger at others for abiding in false doctrine, while our own Faith marches down the same road of vain Tradition(s) that snare every Religion.
mfblume
10-05-2011, 11:27 AM
continued...
Now, during the time that I was going through all this figuring out I wasn't saved. I do not think that I had the Holy Spirit at that time but I was trying to figure it out logically because I wanted to be saved and I loved God even though my love was not pure and was selfish. God was dealing with me.
Finally, God did save me and I fully trusted him. I cannot give you an exact moment but it was either during a sermon or while reading about the gospel that it all hit me and my world came down like a ton of bricks and for the first time in my life I believed and I trusted God. My life changed drastically, my marriage became stronger and I started to lead my family, I became a leader in my church (even though I had the title of leader before) I was just a shell of a person, I had faked out everybody into thinking I was a christian. The people who were walking with me during this time in my life will tell you that I changed drastically. The biggest change was my motives. I started doing the right thing because I was enabled by the spirit to make strong decisions and I did things because of a changed heart. I made friends for the first time in my life and I was able to relate to the hurts and fears of others. I cared about people and for the first time I truly loved others from a different place.
I think you should have learned exactly what you learned about works, and then with that correct understanding stop thinking tongues causes you to be saved. Realize your faith that allows you to accept the fact that Jesus did the work to save us will allow Him to also give you the HOLY GHOST and CAUSE YOU to talk in tongues. Since you no longer focus on tongues, you are actually in a better position that you should have come to way back in pentecost. You should have been taught that kind of faith before.
I later became a calvinist and that has led me toward greater understanding of the scripture as a whole. Calvinism was something that I saw in scripture as well but didn't understand all the arguments. I had always been taught free will.
I still disagree strongly with Calvinism. It makes God a monster, no offence intended to you, since it says God only chooses to save some. Sorry, that is error.
You do hit upon a great point. I was seeking after the holy ghost in the flesh. I wanted God and his blessing but I wasn't born again. At the time I thought my motives were pure but it wasn't until I was really saved that I saw the error of my ways. Still, I don't know how you teach people to receive the Holy Ghost in a way that is not in the flesh.
I just explained it in my earlier post. Tongues do not save us. Repentance and water baptism are obedient acts that are caused by FAITH in us, and the faith saves us. The faith that saves, though, will work. And God causes us to receive His Spirit and He gives utterance for us to speak in tongues. The tongues are EVIDENCE NOT CAUSE, though. And those saved will speak in tongues, but not because the tongues cause the salvation.
Like I said, I tried to get Spirit filled for nine months due to a worldly thinking of works and self. Too many churches simply go along with the world in that sense.... they coerce works and self effort more than trust in God's work. But that does not change the fact that true faith-exerting people in Acts 2 spoke in tongues -- every one of them -- when they received the Spirit baptism.
Just ask yourself what frame of mind the 120 in Acts 2:4 had when they received the Spirit. We know they had the CORRECT thinking and they ALL spoke in tongues, too. Whatever they understood is what we must preach.
The only way I would preach to people is to share the gospel and let God do the work.
That is because I believe you still miss the true concept of what the 120 knew in Acts 2, and you were misled by whatever reason to think differently..
It is the message of the gospel and the Holy Spirit that does the work. I watch my pastor preach every week and there is no alter call and people are saved. Many times I leave and there are a 100 or more people frozen in their sets unable to move who are shaken by the power of the gospel.
God knows who is saved or not, not always us. But the fact remains that I preach this message without anything to do with confusing tongues as the CAUSE instead of the EVIDENCE.
Amanah
10-05-2011, 12:12 PM
I know I'm justified by faith in the blood of Jesus which was shed on that old rugged cross
the good news is that Jesus shed his blood on Calvary and took that blood to the mercy seat for the remission of my sins
the response of my faith is to repent, turn away from sin and toward Jesus
and be baptized in the Name of Jesus to Identify myself with his death, burial, and resurrection
God's response is to seal me with the Holy Ghost of promise, with the evidence of speaking in tongues
Abraham believed God, and his faith was counted to him as righteousness.
Afterwards, God gave him the seal of circumcision as a covenant between them.
Abraham’s faith caused him to go from faith to faith and obey.
--------------
I'm listening to all of you, I'm learning from all of you too :)
mfblume
10-05-2011, 12:20 PM
I know I'm justified by faith in the blood of Jesus which was shed on that old rugged cross
the good news is that Jesus shed his blood on Calvary and took that blood to the mercy seat for the remission of my sins
the response of my faith is to repent, turn away from sin and toward Jesus
and be baptized in the Name of Jesus to Identify myself with his death, burial, and resurrection
God's response is to seal me with the Holy Ghost of promise, with the evidence of speaking in tongues
Abraham believed God, and his faith was counted to him as righteousness.
Afterwards, God gave him the seal of circumcision as a covenant between them.
Abraham’s faith caused him to go from faith to faith and obey.
--------------
I'm listening to all of you, I'm learning from all of you too :)
Right, now what's wrong with that reasoning? Just because some mess it up with works does not mean there is not a true understanding of faith that does not conflict with the initial evidence doctrine.
The Lemon
10-05-2011, 12:28 PM
O.K. - I have read this thread and other like it on here before. I have to admit that while it was tempting to weigh in, I refrained. I try to relate some things like parables - makes it more simple as well as profound. To me our relationship with Jesus is much like the relationship between husband and wife, albeit on a spiritual level.
What I mean is that before I married my wife, I dated or courted her. I got to know her and fall in love with her. The intimacy or consumation of our marriage took place after we said "I do" - no need to elaborate..
I view my relationship with Jesus the same way. When I came to God beliving that He is, that was a step in the beggining of my understanding and getting to know Him. I would read, learned how to pray, etc. It was so exciting because I could feel Him in service and when I would pray all by myself - such peace, and joy.
Then came the day where I was baptized in His name, well that was yet another awesome feeling. It took two years after i got baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, and I had my doubts..trust me! But one night at a tent meeting God filled me, and I can honestly say that it was the closest to Jesus I had ever felt up to that point. As time went on I learned to pray in this language, intercede as well.
All I can say is that to me it is spiritual intimacy with God when you have His Spirit dwelling in you, When I feel to go deeper in prayer, and when it involves praying for someone, I immediately tap into the Holy Ghost...I can't imagine a prayer life without it personally.
Having said all of that, am I going to play God in every Christians life who has not yet had this experience? NO! But I will say this, it is real, it is not fabricated just from emotion alone, and I believe if a person will seek after God, God will fill them. Atmosphere does have alot to do with it because it takes faith to move God - where there is no faith, you won't see the Holy Ghost pured out. Some of you will argue that but there is so much Bible for the importance of faith; also teaching is just as important.
Some folks are jaded by "pentecostal" experiences and it is a wall blocking their faith. That is why it is easier sometimes for folks who are totally unchurched to receive the Holy Ghost, while those who already have been indoctrinated or have had their perception skewed is much harder to receive.
At any rate, I believe people who love God, regardless of denomination, are all at different points in the journey. It is not my place to be their God, but it is my place to give an answer for the hope they is within me..
TGBTG
10-05-2011, 05:12 PM
O.K. - I have read this thread and other like it on here before. I have to admit that while it was tempting to weigh in, I refrained. I try to relate some things like parables - makes it more simple as well as profound. To me our relationship with Jesus is much like the relationship between husband and wife, albeit on a spiritual level.
What I mean is that before I married my wife, I dated or courted her. I got to know her and fall in love with her. The intimacy or consumation of our marriage took place after we said "I do" - no need to elaborate..
I view my relationship with Jesus the same way. When I came to God beliving that He is, that was a step in the beggining of my understanding and getting to know Him. I would read, learned how to pray, etc. It was so exciting because I could feel Him in service and when I would pray all by myself - such peace, and joy.
Then came the day where I was baptized in His name, well that was yet another awesome feeling. It took two years after i got baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, and I had my doubts..trust me! But one night at a tent meeting God filled me, and I can honestly say that it was the closest to Jesus I had ever felt up to that point. As time went on I learned to pray in this language, intercede as well.
All I can say is that to me it is spiritual intimacy with God when you have His Spirit dwelling in you, When I feel to go deeper in prayer, and when it involves praying for someone, I immediately tap into the Holy Ghost...I can't imagine a prayer life without it personally.
Having said all of that, am I going to play God in every Christians life who has not yet had this experience? NO! But I will say this, it is real, it is not fabricated just from emotion alone, and I believe if a person will seek after God, God will fill them. Atmosphere does have alot to do with it because it takes faith to move God - where there is no faith, you won't see the Holy Ghost pured out. Some of you will argue that but there is so much Bible for the importance of faith; also teaching is just as important.
Some folks are jaded by "pentecostal" experiences and it is a wall blocking their faith. That is why it is easier sometimes for folks who are totally unchurched to receive the Holy Ghost, while those who already have been indoctrinated or have had their perception skewed is much harder to receive.
At any rate, I believe people who love God, regardless of denomination, are all at different points in the journey. It is not my place to be their God, but it is my place to give an answer for the hope they is within me..
well spoken
seekerman
10-05-2011, 09:14 PM
If a person 'gits the Holy Ghost' alone in their home and no one hears tongues, did they 'git it'?
How would the pastor or the saints know?
Amanah
10-06-2011, 05:43 AM
If a person 'gits the Holy Ghost' alone in their home and no one hears tongues, did they 'git it'?
How would the pastor or the saints know?
don't be silly, if someone gets it in their home they have it, they don't have to prove it to anyone.
MrsMcD
10-06-2011, 06:14 AM
don't be silly, if someone gets it in their home they have it, they don't have to prove it to anyone.
That's right! That's how I got it. At home in a family prayer meeting when I was a child. :thumbsup
deafdriscoll
10-06-2011, 11:04 AM
You can only come to Christ by the Holy Spirit. It is done by a confession of christ.
Jesus never said we had to speak in tongues to go to heaven.
I believe paul said some will have the gifts and not go to heaven. hmmm....
mfblume
10-06-2011, 11:12 AM
Jesus never said we had to speak in tongues to go to heaven.
Again, the big misnomer is that tongues allegedly save us. No. Spirit baptism is what we are seeking. Not tongues. Tongues is evidence, not cause.
I am leaving who and who does not go to heaven up to God. I do not go there. No one should. Jesus gave us the keys of the kingdom, but kept the keys of death and hell for Himself.
I believe paul said some will have the gifts and not go to heaven. hmmm....
Amen!
livefortruth
10-06-2011, 11:18 AM
without the HG seal of approval (tongues as evidence) the deal is off.
the HG seals the deal.
The problem is that in both Old and New Testament the Holy Spirit fills people and they do not speak in tongues as a result. There are instances where they do and instances where they don't. That aside, the idea of being "filled" with the Spirit usually does not refer to salvation. Everyone needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved but the concept of being "filled" in Old and New Testaments is usually similar to being "empowered" "enabled" etc.
livefortruth
10-06-2011, 11:20 AM
There is no mention of tongues as an evidence of spirit baptism in scripture. I see nothing mentioned by any apostle, teacher, or Jesus that mentions this. There are three or four instances where people receive the Holy Ghost and that happened over a very long period of years and years. Each time tongues was mentioned is was because this was a new people group who were receiving the spirit and each time there was an apostle present. Other than those instances, there is no other mention in scripture of tongues ever accompanying the Holy Spirit and many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were saved. If fact, the whole world changed and the gospel spread like wildfire and there is no mention of people seeking this evidence.
Amen, everyone should read this and take it seriously.
mfblume
10-06-2011, 11:20 AM
The problem is that in both Old and New Testament the Holy Spirit fills people and they do not speak in tongues as a result. There are instances where they do and instances where they don't.
True, but there is a marked difference between Spirit infilling BEFORE the cross and afterwards. Atonement made the all important difference. They were filled beforehand to only do specific ministries, whereas since the cross it is for Christ's indwelling in us as being made temples of His Spirit.
That aside, the idea of being "filled" with the Spirit usually does not refer to salvation. Everyone needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved but the concept of being "filled" in Old and New Testaments is usually similar to being "empowered" "enabled" etc.
That is how the bible relates and associates it.
livefortruth
10-06-2011, 11:22 AM
When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.
When Paul describes the "earnest" he never connects that with speaking in tongues. You are importing your theology into a verse by assuming that Paul already believes what you believe.
mfblume
10-06-2011, 11:25 AM
There is no mention of tongues as an evidence of spirit baptism in scripture. I see nothing mentioned by any apostle, teacher, or Jesus that mentions this. There are three or four instances where people receive the Holy Ghost and that happened over a very long period of years and years. Each time tongues was mentioned is was because this was a new people group who were receiving the spirit and each time there was an apostle present. Other than those instances, there is no other mention in scripture of tongues ever accompanying the Holy Spirit and many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were saved. If fact, the whole world changed and the gospel spread like wildfire and there is no mention of people seeking this evidence.[Amen, everyone should read this and take it seriously.
But one can also say that the reason tongues was never mentioned each and every time people were filled with the Spirit in Acts is because it would be redundant to repeat the same detail over and over again once the precedent was established. It could be that tongues were mentioned with Jews being Spirit filled and Gentiles being Spirit filled and disciples of John being Spirit filled because once that precedent is set, it is to be taken for granted it occurred in subsequent experiences.
To say it only occurred when the experience was first given to certain ethnic peoples, and never again, is no more substantial than saying it was meant to be understood it was given in every instance of any experience noted after it was established to be the norm when it first occurred with those groups.
And evidence is NOT SOUGHT. Again, that is a strawman argument. Even though today people SEEK the evidence, sometimes more than the gift itself, that is error on the seeker's part. We seek the Baptism of the Spirit, not the evidence of it.
livefortruth
10-06-2011, 11:26 AM
True, but there is a marked difference between Spirit infilling BEFORE the cross and afterwards. Atonement made the all important difference. They were filled beforehand to only do specific ministries, whereas since the cross it is for Christ's indwelling in us as being made temples of His Spirit.
That is how the bible relates and associates it.
I'm glad you agree that the term "filled with the Spirit" most often refers to empowering and enabling.
There are instances in Acts where being filled with the Spirit does not result in tongues. Some were "filled with the Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness" and Paul at one time was filled with the Spirit and caused someone to be blinded.
The idea of being filled is often associated with being able to do something that you could not otherwise do. So in reference to tongues I would say that someone is filled with the Spirit and they are enabled to do something the otherwise would not be able to do and in the case of Acts 2, 10, and 19, that thing is tongues.
Paul says "I would like it if you all spoke with tongues." Apparently the power exists through the Holy Spirit but not all have done it yet, not all will, and this does not prevent them from salvation.
I'm not sure your position but I am just expressing some of my thoughts.
livefortruth
10-06-2011, 11:28 AM
But one can also say that the reason tongues was never mentioned each and every time people were filled with the Spirit in Acts is because it would be redundant to repeat the same detail over and over again once the precedent was established. It could be that tongues were mentioned with Jews being Spirit filled and Gentiles being Spirit filled and disciples of John being Spirit filled because once that precedent is set, it is to be taken for granted it occurred in subsequent experiences.
To say it only occurred when the experience was first given to certain ethnic peoples, and never again, is no more substantial than saying it was meant to be understood it was given in every instance of any experience noted after it was established to be the norm when it first occurred with those groups.
And evidence is NOT SOUGHT. Again, that is a strawman argument. Even though today people SEEK the evidence, sometimes more than the gift itself, that is error on the seeker's part. We seek the Baptism of the Spirit, not the evidence of it.
The minority of conversions speak in tongues in the book of Acts. It is a misnomer to say that Luke was avoiding redundancy because something can only be redundant if it is said over and over and over. Tongues is mentioned 3 times in Acts and there are a lot more than 3 conversions in the book of Acts.
mfblume
10-06-2011, 11:29 AM
I'm glad you agree that the term "filled with the Spirit" most often refers to empowering and enabling.
There are instances in Acts where being filled with the Spirit does not result in tongues. Some were "filled with the Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness" [
Yes, but these people in Acts 4 already had been filled in Acts 2.
and Paul at one time was filled with the Spirit and caused someone to be blinded.
The idea of being filled is often associated with being able to do something that you could not otherwise do. So in reference to tongues I would say that someone is filled with the Spirit and they are enabled to do something the otherwise would not be able to do and in the case of Acts 2, 10, and 19, that thing is tongues.
Paul says "I would like it if you all spoke with tongues." Apparently the power exists through the Holy Spirit but not all have done it yet, not all will, and this does not prevent them from salvation.
I'm not sure your position but I am just expressing some of my thoughts.
I appreciate your words. They are well thought out. I may not fully agree, though. If Paul spoke of tongues for prayer in the manner in which he did, saying he willed all spoke with tongues, I think that implies it is meant for all. Why would Paul teach on prayer in tongues if only a select few could enjoy that? It is communion with God, after all! Is Paul saying only a select few enjoy THAT kind of communion with God? I think not.
mfblume
10-06-2011, 11:31 AM
The minority of conversions speak in tongues in the book of Acts. It is a misnomer to say that Luke was avoiding redundancy because something can only be redundant if it is said over and over and over. Tongues is mentioned 3 times in Acts and there are a lot more than 3 conversions in the book of Acts.
But the all important factor is that tongues are associated with the more overspreading thought that they occurred when ENTIRE ETHNIC PEOPLES. IOW, precedent setting. In fact, what lends credence to this idea is that Acts 15 shows the apostles proving the gentiles received the Spirit because they experienced precisely what the Jews did in Acts 2, which Acts 10 says was the speaking with tongues. And for it to happen today with people who never even knew tongues was a reality nor heard of it (as I personally know people like this), it sends the message even more clearly.
Pressing-On
10-06-2011, 12:45 PM
But the all important factor is that tongues are associated with the more overspreading thought that they occurred when ENTIRE ETHNIC PEOPLES. IOW, precedent setting. In fact, what lends credence to this idea is that Acts 15 shows the apostles proving the gentiles received the Spirit because they experienced precisely what the Jews did in Acts 2, which Acts 10 says was the speaking with tongues. And for it to happen today with people who never even knew tongues was a reality nor heard of it (as I personally know people like this), it sends the message even more clearly.
:thumbsup:thumbsup
berkeley
10-06-2011, 02:15 PM
Mike, I forgot about that passage. If I remember I'll find it today.
Have you read it in the NEW LIFE VERSION. It made me choke on my venti iced caramel macchiatto with extra caramel sauce. Check it out at bible gateway.
mfblume
10-06-2011, 02:39 PM
Mike, I forgot about that passage. If I remember I'll find it today.
Have you read it in the NEW LIFE VERSION. It made me choke on my venti iced caramel macchiatto with extra caramel sauce. Check it out at bible gateway.
lol
Acts 10:44 NLV While Peter was speaking, the Holy Spirit came on all who were hearing his words. 45 The Jewish followers who had come along with Peter were surprised and wondered because the gift of the Holy Spirit was also given to the people who were not Jews. 46 They heard them speak in special sounds and give thanks to God. Then Peter said, 47 “Will anyone say that these people may not be baptized? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 He gave the word that they should be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for some days.
Special SOUNDS??? lol
berkeley
10-06-2011, 02:44 PM
YEAH, what does that mean? O.o
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.