How do you almost receive a gift?

[Sasha]

I read something very disturbing from a friend of mine today. She was speaking about her children getting baptized when someone asked if her son received the Holy Ghost. Her reply was, "Not yet, but he almost did."

I've heard people say that many times in my life, but it never struck me like it did when I read that line. How does God almost give us a gift? Where is scripture that says someone "almost" received the Holy Ghost? Where did that come from and why did people start saying it?

[votivesoul]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.

[kclee4jc]

Its not about His 'almost' giving a gift. But about the individual being almost yielded enough to receive it.

[Jermyn Davidson]

It's a religious colloquialism that is based on questionable theology, and that's me being careful and polite.

[Dordrecht]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.

You are joking, right?

[Luke]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.

Exactly as I was going to put it.:highfive

[ILG]

I read something very disturbing from a friend of mine today. She was speaking about her children getting baptized when someone asked if her son received the Holy Ghost. Her reply was, "Not yet, but he almost did."

I've heard people say that many times in my life, but it never struck me like it did when I read that line. How does God almost give us a gift? Where is scripture that says someone "almost" received the Holy Ghost? Where did that come from and why did people start saying it?

Good point! Never thought of that before.

[Dordrecht]

Lol….it's like: God was going to baptize in the Holy Ghost,
but at the last minute decided: "Hold on wait a minute, let's hold off a bit…maybe tomorrow…"

Where's that kind of stuff in scripture?
People make up all kinds of things.
It's almost comical if it was not such a serious issue.

[Pilgrum]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.

Not trying to impart any intent on your part but this seems to say to me that receiving the Holy Ghost is dependent on whether or not we yield to speaking in tongues. In other words, first you speak in tongues and then He will fill you with His Spirit. Seems a little odd. One can also ask, were in the Bible do we see the term or precedence for "yielding"?

[n david]

Lol….it's like: God was going to baptize in the Holy Ghost, but at the last minute decided: "Hold on wait a minute, let's hold off a bit…maybe tomorrow…"

Where's that kind of stuff in scripture?
People make up all kinds of things.
It's almost comical if it was not such a serious issue.
I've prayed for people who have had stammering lips, then became either embarrassed or afraid and did not continue praying until they spoke in tongues. It's not as you described, where God holds off the gift, nor is it something made up.

[KeptByTheWord]

There is nowhere in the book of Acts where it mentions people having stammering lips. Nor does it mention anywhere that people "almost" received the Holy Ghost. People believed, and then received.

Could it be that people are seeking the gift instead of the GIVER, and that is why they are not receiving? That is my take on it. It is taught that you will go to hell if you don't receive, and so therefore, the seeker is seeking the gift, instead of the GIVER.

Paul and all the apostles preached Jesus, people believed, and received in an instant. I believe the method of preaching today has caused people to fear, and seek the gift, instead of the GIVER, Jesus. That is why people aren't receiving, because they are looking for just the gift, instead of the whole package of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. They haven't surrendered their life to Him. They just want the gift without surrender.

Seek the Giver and be willing to surrender all, and the gift of the HG will come. If you seek just the gift... that is why you have people seeking the HG for months or years. They have not truly surrendered to Jesus.

JESUS needs to be preached, not "receive ye the HG". Preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus... preach surrender, preach take up your cross and follow Him... when people truly seek HIM with a surrendered heart, the gift of the HG will follow.

[Pressing-On]

I've prayed for people who have had stammering lips, then became either embarrassed or afraid and did not continue praying until they spoke in tongues. It's not as you described, where God holds off the gift, nor is it something made up.

:thumbsup

[MissBrattified]

There is nowhere in the book of Acts where it mentions people having stammering lips. Nor does it mention anywhere that people "almost" received the Holy Ghost. People believed, and then received.

Could it be that people are seeking the gift instead of the GIVER, and that is why they are not receiving? That is my take on it. It is taught that you will go to hell if you don't receive, and so therefore, the seeker is seeking the gift, instead of the GIVER.

Paul and all the apostles preached Jesus, people believed, and received in an instant. I believe the method of preaching today has caused people to fear, and seek the gift, instead of the GIVER, Jesus. That is why people aren't receiving, because they are looking for just the gift, instead of the whole package of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. They haven't surrendered their life to Him. They just want the gift without surrender.

Seek the Giver and be willing to surrender all, and the gift of the HG will come. If you seek just the gift... that is why you have people seeking the HG for months or years. They have not truly surrendered to Jesus.

JESUS needs to be preached, not "receive ye the HG". Preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus... preach surrender, preach take up your cross and follow Him... when people truly seek HIM with a surrendered heart, the gift of the HG will follow.

:thumbsup

I agree that this is a problem, and it's probably unique to our era. People in the book of Acts didn't have the issue of having a preconceived idea of what they were "supposed" to receive or what was supposed to happen when they received it, so it occurred more authentically and naturally. These days, people are seeking tongues instead of seeking the Spirit.

My personal opinion, though: If someone had stammering lips and they felt they had received the Spirit, I would NOT tell them that they hadn't because they hadn't spoken in [fluent] tongues yet. IMO, it's the follow-up denial of obviously divine experiences which compounds the problem. People KNOW they experienced something, only to have it denied or minimized, and walk away discouraged and wondering what they missed. We are limiting God when we listen for certain formed words that we can then personally validate. Who are we to say that a simple "stammer" was not the Spirit? :foottap

To the point of the thread, though, when people say someone "almost" got it, it either refers to them having stammering lips but not speaking in tongues yet, OR it refers to them obviously feeling the presence of God in a very real way but not receiving the Holy Ghost at all.

[Pressing-On]

My personal opinion, though: If someone had stammering lips and they felt they had received the Spirit, I would NOT tell them that they hadn't because they hadn't spoken in [fluent] tongues yet. IMO, it's the follow-up denial of obviously divine experiences which compounds the problem. People KNOW they experienced something, only to have it denied or minimized, and walk away discouraged and wondering what they missed. We are limiting God when we listen for certain formed words that we can then personally validate. Who are we to say that a simple "stammer" was not the Spirit? :foottap


This happened to my daughter when she was around 8 years old. The older women denied she had received the Holy Ghost, even though there was a change in her. A year later she did speak in tongues, to everyone's satisfaction, for about 30 minutes. :heeheehee

[n david]

This happened to my daughter when she was around 8 years old. The older women denied she had received the Holy Ghost, even though there was a change in her. A year later she did speak in tongues, to everyone's satisfaction, for about 30 minutes. :heeheehee
That's good. Typically my rule is they have to be continuously speaking in tongues for at least a good 5 or 10 minutes straight before I'm convinced they've received the Holy Ghost.






























:happydance
/kidding

[MissBrattified]

This happened to my daughter when she was around 8 years old. The older women denied she had received the Holy Ghost, even though there was a change in her. A year later she did speak in tongues, to everyone's satisfaction, for about 30 minutes. :heeheehee

It's great that she eventually spoke to everyone's satisfaction, but it is so annoying when that happens! :girlytantrum I wish people would just hush and let the newbie tell everyone what happened to them--without any bystander input!

My husband had a similar experience, only in the reverse--he didn't have stammering lips or speak in tongues, but the youth leader at the time proclaimed loudly that he had received the Holy Ghost when he came up out of the water at baptism. My husband was then too embarrassed to go up for prayer again, because he didn't want to contradict the youth leader. It took quite some time to pray in tongues on his own and to his personal satisfaction.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I want to plainly state that I don't believe that the Bible makes the case for salvation having to do with speaking in tongues.

Even if it did, the Bible states that He would use stammering lips and strange tongues.

So why wouldn't stammering lips be enough to call someone saved?

[seguidordejesus]

I want to plainly state that I don't believe that the Bible makes the case for salvation having to do with speaking in tongues.

Even if it did, the Bible states that He would use stammering lips and strange tongues.

So why wouldn't stammering lips be enough to call someone saved?

:highfive

[ILG]

I want to plainly state that I don't believe that the Bible makes the case for salvation having to do with speaking in tongues.

Even if it did, the Bible states that He would use stammering lips and strange tongues.

So why wouldn't stammering lips be enough to call someone saved?

:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

It's great that she eventually spoke to everyone's satisfaction, but it is so annoying when that happens! :girlytantrum I wish people would just hush and let the newbie tell everyone what happened to them--without any bystander input!

My husband had a similar experience, only in the reverse--he didn't have stammering lips or speak in tongues, but the youth leader at the time proclaimed loudly that he had received the Holy Ghost when he came up out of the water at baptism. My husband was then too embarrassed to go up for prayer again, because he didn't want to contradict the youth leader. It took quite some time to pray in tongues on his own and to his personal satisfaction.
Sometimes people are so ridiculous, and, YES, annoying.

[Pressing-On]

I want to plainly state that I don't believe that the Bible makes the case for salvation having to do with speaking in tongues.

Even if it did, the Bible states that He would use stammering lips and strange tongues.

So why wouldn't stammering lips be enough to call someone saved?

It does. :D

[Pressing-On]

That's good. Typically my rule is they have to be continuously speaking in tongues for at least a good 5 or 10 minutes straight before I'm convinced they've received the Holy Ghost.
:happydance
/kidding

:toofunny

My husband spoke ONCE, for 30 minutes, upon initially receiving the Holy Ghost, but has never spoken in tongues since.

[n david]

I want to plainly state that I don't believe that the Bible makes the case for salvation having to do with speaking in tongues.
It does.

Even if it did, the Bible states that He would use stammering lips and strange tongues.
Isaiah 28:11 is not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues.

So why wouldn't stammering lips be enough to call someone saved?
It's not.

[MissBrattified]

It does.


Isaiah 28:11 is not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues.


It's not.

How do you mark the difference between stammering lips and speaking in tongues? At what point does "stammering lips" become "speaking in tongues?"

[renee819]

Stammering lips is a real experience.

I started seeking for the Holy Ghost when I was 11. I'm ashamed to admit that I had stammering lips for years. And I'm not sure to this day why. Sometimes I would get very discouraged, but I would not quit.

One thing I determined, within myself, I had to speak plainly before I would accept it. Also I heard stories about people seeing a great light, or some other great thing happening to them, and I was expecting this also. But I believe Kept hit the nail on the head., at least this was also my conclusion years later.

Kept wrote,
Could it be that people are seeking the gift instead of the GIVER, and that is why they are not receiving? That is my take on it. It is taught that you will go to hell if you don't receive, and so therefore, the seeker is seeking the gift, instead of the GIVER

I believed and still do that a person has to receive the Holy Ghost to be saved. Therefore, I was seeking the Holy Ghost.
I put this on here for example of what we need to teach people.

[houston]

Where do we find stammering lips in the book of ACTS???


*crickets*

[houston]

The stammering lips in the book of Isaiah is not what you find in pentecostal services.

[n david]

How do you mark the difference between stammering lips and speaking in tongues? At what point does "stammering lips" become "speaking in tongues?"
It depends on how you define "stammering," or what you believe it to be. IMO, there is a difference between stammering and speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is clear and fluent; stammering is not.

[n david]

The stammering lips in the book of Isaiah is not what you find in pentecostal services.
Isaiah was referencing a judgement against Israel. Unless people believe speaking in tongues is a judgement against them, the "stammering lips and other tongues" of Isaiah 28:11 is not the speaking in tongues as the spirit gives utterance of Acts 2.

[obriencp]

:toofunny

My husband spoke ONCE, for 30 minutes, upon initially receiving the Holy Ghost, but has never spoken in tongues since.

According to many, he's no longer saved because he hasn't been stiring up the gift.

That's the problem with these "satisfy everyone" statements... who are we to judge whether or not someone is saved based on what a crowd thinks while they're gathered around someone having an intimate moment with our Savior. Some need to see/hear a fluent tongues experience for a certain amount of time... seriously?! If we're speaking in heavenly tongues how can the crowd determine what is fluent. Because we hear some common "tongue" words we're the experts on what is/has taken place to their inner man?

Why can't we tell people to seek the giver as someone already posted and let their fruit bear witness of their salvation. Explain to seekers what can happen so their not afraid to submit, but don't give guidlines as to what has to happen. I've told someone they "almost had it" and often wonder where they ended up. I saw the disappointment, doubt, and fear in their eyes and I regret it still.

[Sasha]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.

But is that Biblical? Where do we see it in scripture where someone 'almost' received the Holy Ghost? And since it's a gift, how can one 'almost' receive it?

[n david]

According to many, he's no longer saved because he hasn't been stiring up the gift.

That's the problem with these "satisfy everyone" statements... who are we to judge whether or not someone is saved based on what a crowd thinks while they're gathered around someone having an intimate moment with our Savior. Some need to see/hear a fluent tongues experience for a certain amount of time... seriously?! If we're speaking in heavenly tongues how can the crowd determine what is fluent. Because we hear some common "tongue" words we're the experts on what is/has taken place to their inner man?

Why can't we tell people to seek the giver as someone already posted and let their fruit bear witness of their salvation. Explain to seekers what can happen so their not afraid to submit, but don't give guidlines as to what has to happen. I've told someone they "almost had it" and often wonder where they ended up. I saw the disappointment, doubt, and fear in their eyes and I regret it still.
IMO, tongues is only the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost infilling. After the initial evidence, the fruit of the spirit should be demonstrated in their life.

[Sasha]

There is nowhere in the book of Acts where it mentions people having stammering lips. Nor does it mention anywhere that people "almost" received the Holy Ghost. People believed, and then received.

Could it be that people are seeking the gift instead of the GIVER, and that is why they are not receiving? That is my take on it. It is taught that you will go to hell if you don't receive, and so therefore, the seeker is seeking the gift, instead of the GIVER.

Paul and all the apostles preached Jesus, people believed, and received in an instant. I believe the method of preaching today has caused people to fear, and seek the gift, instead of the GIVER, Jesus. That is why people aren't receiving, because they are looking for just the gift, instead of the whole package of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. They haven't surrendered their life to Him. They just want the gift without surrender.

Seek the Giver and be willing to surrender all, and the gift of the HG will come. If you seek just the gift... that is why you have people seeking the HG for months or years. They have not truly surrendered to Jesus.

JESUS needs to be preached, not "receive ye the HG". Preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus... preach surrender, preach take up your cross and follow Him... when people truly seek HIM with a surrendered heart, the gift of the HG will follow.

I really like how you put that into perspective! I agree that when people are taught to speak in tongues or they aren't saved, they try to make themselves and it just doesn't happen that way, so you have someone who 'almost' speaks in tongues because they are trying to hard to do it!

In the case I mentioned, it refers to children aged 9 and 11 who have been raised in church as were their parents. And let me preface this by saying these people are wonderful people, and the mother's parents are pastors and also wonderful people, so this isn't about them at all. I think they are doing what they have also been taught with the purest motives in mind, but that statement made today just broke my heart to read. They seriously just don't know any better.

That being said, is this also the reason why people of any age just get discouraged and think the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues) isn't for them or that God won't give it to them that way?

[Real Realism]

Haven't read through the whole thread yet. But it reminds me of a young woman in our church whom I only have heard speak in "stammering lips" (lalalalalalalalalalala *gasp sob* lalalalalalalalalalala *breath* lalalalalalalalala).

Over the course of three years in attendance at our church. She wasn't raised in church, but has been "in church" for about 7 years.

Now - of course you never know what is going on in someone's life. But from all my interactions with her husband and her, they appear to be a good Christian family and seeking the will of God for their lives.

I've posted on here about my seeking understanding about the "initial evidence" and all the reasons why I lean very strongly toward believing tongues are the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost (based on Biblical examples of the description of receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts).

All that said - for those who also believe in the initial evidence - what's your take on this type of situation? I've often wondered when hearing her pray loudly...is this really "tongues"? If tongues are equivalent to some language, be it natural, currently language; natural, dead language; or heavenly language...repeating the same syllable over and over (stammering lips) doesn't really seem to fit the bill... :hmmm

[Sasha]

It depends on how you define "stammering," or what you believe it to be. IMO, there is a difference between stammering and speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is clear and fluent; stammering is not.

But unless you know all languages, how can you tell if it's stammering or a true language, and does that really matter?

I've heard others speak in their native tongue and sound like nothing but gibberish. Ever heard Chinese? :heeheehee

[Sasha]

Haven't read through the whole thread yet. But it reminds me of a young woman in our church whom I only have heard speak in "stammering lips" (lalalalalalalalalalala *gasp sob* lalalalalalalalalalala *breath* lalalalalalalalala).

Over the course of three years in attendance at our church. She wasn't raised in church, but has been "in church" for about 7 years.

Now - of course you never know what is going on in someone's life. But from all my interactions with her husband and her, they appear to be a good Christian family and seeking the will of God for their lives.

I've posted on here about my seeking understanding about the "initial evidence" and all the reasons why I lean very strongly toward believing tongues are the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost (based on Biblical examples of the description of receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts).

All that said - for those who also believe in the initial evidence - what's your take on this type of situation? I've often wondered when hearing her pray loudly...is this really "tongues"? If tongues are equivalent to some language, be it natural, currently language; natural, dead language; or heavenly language...repeating the same syllable over and over (stammering lips) doesn't really seem to fit the bill... :hmmm

She probably says a whole lot more saying 'lalalalalalalala' than some people posting on this forum. LOL!

[ILG]

I was so confused for so many years because I had repented, been baptized in the titles, received the Holy Ghost and was SAVED SAVED SAVED from my old life.

Then, I got into the UPC a couple months later and the pastor told me I wasn't saved! I got baptized in Jesus name and he showed me the scripture where it said that I had to be baptized in Jesus name or I wasn't saved and sure enough, I could see what he said right in front of me. He said my feelings didn't matter, only what the Bible said mattered. He said I was saved now.

This confused me for so, so long. I learned to not trust my perception of anything because I was deceived by my feelings before, having believed I was "saved" when I wasn't! Supposedly, my feelings had told me I was saved but I was deceived and lied to and thank God he brought me into the truth. (TIC)

Yeah, right. It took me over 20 years to break free from that mind twist.

[Real Realism]

She probably says a whole lot more saying 'lalalalalalalala' than some people posting on this forum. LOL!

lol - more like :blah

But, no, really. In my mind I've tried to rationalize it. You know how the languages in Africa where they use tongue clicks. Maybe there's some "lalalalala" language where the number of "lala"s means different things. But then I just realize I'm grasping at straws to try to justify it within the construct that we've created in our Pentecostal narrative.

[obriencp]

In the case I mentioned, it refers to children aged 9 and 11 who have been raised in church as were their parents. And let me preface this by saying these people are wonderful people, and the mother's parents are pastors and also wonderful people, so this isn't about them at all. I think they are doing what they have also been taught with the purest motives in mind, but that statement made today just broke my heart to read. They seriously just don't know any better.

That being said, is this also the reason why people of any age just get discouraged and think the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues) isn't for them or that God won't give it to them that way?

This. They mean well, but are only products of what has been passed down. I know a young man that tarried like he was supposed to but didn't recieve it evidenced by speaking in fluent tongues and was discouraged to the point of leaving the church.

[Pressing-On]

IMO, tongues is only the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost infilling. After the initial evidence, the fruit of the spirit should be demonstrated in their life.

:thumbsup

[n david]

But unless you know all languages, how can you tell if it's stammering or a true language, and does that really matter?

I've heard others speak in their native tongue and sound like nothing but gibberish. Ever heard Chinese? :heeheehee
Again, stammering is evident. As Real Realism just described, much stammering is "lalalala" or some other stutter. Every person I've heard speak in tongues did so with clarity. There was no stammer in it.

[Sasha]

lol - more like :blah

But, no, really. In my mind I've tried to rationalize it. You know how the languages in Africa where they use tongue clicks. Maybe there's some "lalalalala" language where the number of "lala"s means different things. But then I just realize I'm grasping at straws to try to justify it within the construct that we've created in our Pentecostal narrative.

But again, is it the hearer who determines whether or not someone has spoke in tongues? In Acts 2, it's reported that over 3000 souls were saved (meaning spoke in tongues) that day. How did the writer know that, interview them all, listen to them all, what? I really want to know! :girlytantrum

[Sasha]

Again, stammering is evident. As Real Realism just described, much stammering is "lalalala" or some other stutter. Every person I've heard speak in tongues did so with clarity. There was no stammer in it.

I'll ask you the same question. Is it the hearer's opinion of what's heard that determines if someone really spoke in tongues or not? What of those who speak in tongues but are alone? What about mutes?

See, now I'm asking more and more questions!

[n david]

I'll ask you the same question. Is it the hearer's opinion of what's heard that determines if someone really spoke in tongues or not? What of those who speak in tongues but are alone? What about mutes?

See, now I'm asking more and more questions!
No, it's whether they spoke in tongues or just had stammering lips.

If they spoke in tongues alone, they still spoke in tongues.

I witnessed one mute speak in tongues...guess what? She spoke in tongues. She didn't do weird hand signals; she opened her mouth and in a loud and clear voice spoke in tongues.

:happydance

[Pressing-On]

No, it's whether they spoke in tongues or just had stammering lips.

If they spoke in tongues alone, they still spoke in tongues.

I witnessed one mute speak in tongues...guess what? She spoke in tongues. She didn't do weird hand signals; she opened her mouth and in a loud and clear voice spoke in tongues.

:happydance

:heeheehee

[Sasha]

No, it's whether they spoke in tongues or just had stammering lips.

If they spoke in tongues alone, they still spoke in tongues.

I witnessed one mute speak in tongues...guess what? She spoke in tongues. She didn't do weird hand signals; she opened her mouth and in a loud and clear voice spoke in tongues.

:happydance

But how do THEY know they spoke in tongues or just had stammering lips, assuming they don't know what stammering lips even is?

And I've heard of mutes speaking in tongues. I think it's great. I've also seen many deaf get discouraged because they cannot 'meet the requirements' the speaking world demands in order to be saved.

[Pressing-On]

But how do THEY know they spoke in tongues or just had stammering lips, assuming they don't know what stammering lips even is?

And I've heard of mutes speaking in tongues. I think it's great. I've also seen many deaf get discouraged because they cannot 'meet the requirements' the speaking world demands in order to be saved.
I've never seen anyone, having stammering lips, not know the difference. They experienced a touch of God and wanted that to happen more. I've never told someone they haven't received the Holy Ghost, because with the stammering lips, they are uttering something, it's just so barely audible. My son also had that experience-at least two barely audible words. I knew he had the Holy Ghost by how he acted thereafter. I can imaging that happening also in the Upper Room.

[TGBTG]

But, no, really. In my mind I've tried to rationalize it. You know how the languages in Africa where they use tongue clicks. Maybe there's some "lalalalala" language where the number of "lala"s means different things. But then I just realize I'm grasping at straws to try to justify it within the construct that we've created in our Pentecostal narrative.
Wow! simply wow!

That's an ignorant perception that floats around. People living in COUNTRIES on the CONTINENT of Africa speak languages that consists of syllables, words, etc. and can be written in letters.

carry on...

[Real Realism]

How is that an ignorant perception? I didn't say that it was a language that could not be written down. Just that it was one example of a language that simply doesn't follow the linguistic pattern that we're familiar with in the Euro-Western culture. Or in Asian culture (which we're more familiar with because of the globalized influence of China and Japan). The "tongue clicking" consonant is an articulation that does not exist in Germanic and Latin languages. It doesn't mean it's not as valid a language as any other around the globe. That's the point. :dogpat

[shazeep]

ok, has anyone noted yet that the 'stammering lips' being referred to has nothing whatever to do with speaking in tongues? I mean, please? That is how the Philistines or whomever, Romans, i don't remember, that took over Jerusalem, spoke Aramaic or Hebrew or whatever; with 'stammering lips.' I'm wondering how i had no idea all these years that the 'tongue-tied' had usurped this verse lol.

[n david]

ok, has anyone noted yet that the 'stammering lips' being referred to has nothing whatever to do with speaking in tongues? I mean, please? That is how the Philistines or whomever, Romans, i don't remember, that took over Jerusalem, spoke Aramaic or Hebrew or whatever; with 'stammering lips.' I'm wondering how i had no idea all these years that the 'tongue-tied' had usurped this verse lol.
Yes! :lol I posted that Isaiah 28:11 is not about speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost. I'm surprised that so many UPC/Pentecostal churches use that verse as a "prophecy" for Acts 2.

[Praxeas]

I read something very disturbing from a friend of mine today. She was speaking about her children getting baptized when someone asked if her son received the Holy Ghost. Her reply was, "Not yet, but he almost did."

I've heard people say that many times in my life, but it never struck me like it did when I read that line. How does God almost give us a gift? Where is scripture that says someone "almost" received the Holy Ghost? Where did that come from and why did people start saying it?
It's not that "God almost gave a gift".

God GAVE the gift 2000+ years ago.

Her perception is probably based on tongues being the evidence that someone received that gift. If someone appears to be close to speaking in tongues, it is said "He/She almost received it"

[n david]

It's not that "God almost gave a gift".

God GAVE the gift 2000+ years ago.

Her perception is probably based on tongues being the evidence that someone received that gift. If someone appears to be close to speaking in tongues, it is said "He/She almost received it"

:thumbsup

[TGBTG]

Yes! :lol I posted that Isaiah 28:11 is not about speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost. I'm surprised that so many UPC/Pentecostal churches use that verse as a "prophecy" for Acts 2.

I think the connection is made based on Paul using Isaiah 28:11 as a stepping stone to discuss the issue of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian church.

1 Cor 14
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul used Is 28:11 as a text about speaking in tongues, and since the Pentecostal churches "generally" believe tongues is the evidence of receiving the Spirit, thus the case is made that Is 28:11 is a prophecy about speaking in tongues and speaking in tongues was first done in Acts 2. Thus, Is 28:11 was fulfilled in Acts 2.

Also, right after Is 28:11, verse 12 says "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."

Given that the "rest" (ref: Heb 4:10, Matt 11:28), in NT terms is salvation (a.k.a receving the Holy Ghost), it is thus inferred that the "rest" prophesied in Is 28:12 is the coming of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant, which was also fulfilled in Acts 2.

So, when Is 28:11- 12 is read, it is understood as the rest (salvation a.k.a Holy Ghost) which God gives with the evidence of speaking in tongues, first fulfilled in Acts 2.

Moreover, in verse 16 of that same Isaiah chapter, we read:
Is 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Paul and Peter in Rom 10:11 and 1 Peter 2:6 respectively also teach that NT salvation is the fulfillment of Is 28:16. Thus, when you tie it all together, you should see why some teach Isaiah 28:11-16 as a prophecy that was fulfilled by way of the new covenant established in Acts 2.

my $0.02

[Sasha]

It's not that "God almost gave a gift".

God GAVE the gift 2000+ years ago.

Her perception is probably based on tongues being the evidence that someone received that gift. If someone appears to be close to speaking in tongues, it is said "He/She almost received it"

But why do we say that? Is there any scripture that states anyone 'almost' received the Holy Ghost? Surely there is an example out of all those people.

[Praxeas]

But why do we say that? Is there any scripture that states anyone 'almost' received the Holy Ghost? Surely there is an example out of all those people.
As I said people SAY that because it "appears" to them that someone was close to speaking in tongues...

We might also say "Someone I witnessed too was close to accepting"...based on personal opinion of how that person received the witness..

It's not a biblical observation. It's an experiential observation.

[Praxeas]

How did they know the Samaritans had not received the Spirit yet? Luke does not elaborate but there must have been some reason, some apparent evidence they witnessed or lack thereof

[renee819]

When I had stammering lips, I had no control of what I was saying. It wasn't anything like lalalalal. My lips and my whole jaws trembled, and people said that they could see the Spirit of God in my face. One sister said she heard me speak in tongues, but I wouldn't accept it, because I did not speak plainly. I probably did have the Holy Ghost long before I accepted it.

Let's look at the scriptures concerning stammering lips.

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

I believe that the Holy Ghost is the 'rest' promised to his people,
God sent the Holy Ghost to the Jews first, but they as a nation would not accept it, would not hear, therefore He blinded their eyes as it says in Rom 11.

Paul reminds the church of these scriptures in 1 Cor. Although he doesn't use word for word, these are the scriptures that he is referring to.

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Remember, the 12-13-and 14th chapters are Paul's instructions about the Gifts of the Spirit, and the 14th is mostly about tongues.

And just as the Religious world would not hear the gospel, in that day, so also today much of the Religious world rejects it. And just as God sent blindness to Israel, in this generation He is sending the 'Strong Delusion.' But that is another subject.

[Chateau d'If]

Very good thread.

If tongues are proof one is saved altar workers should be relabeled "proofers."

[Sasha]

As I said people SAY that because it "appears" to them that someone was close to speaking in tongues...

We might also say "Someone I witnessed too was close to accepting"...based on personal opinion of how that person received the witness..

It's not a biblical observation. It's an experiential observation.

There are Biblical examples of people being 'close to accepting' Christ. There are no Biblical examples of someone 'almost' getting the Holy Ghost.

In the Bible, people believed and they received. Simple. No all night prayer meetings. Nobody shouting 'hold on!' in one ear and 'let go!' in the other. Nobody swaying the prayee back and forth or 'I love you Jesus' very fast until their tongue is tied.

As a child, I was taught (in my UPC church) that the Holy Ghost was a gift, and God doesn't withhold His gifts from us. Then they would excuse the person who would 'almost' get it to say they were 'not letting go' of something, didn't have enough faith, not repentant, and such like. I grew up thinking that God was giving us His gift but more like wagging it over our heads or holding it out for us as we reached for it from an adjacent cliff....just out of reach...unless you were lucky enough to be one of those people who could speak in tongues instantly.

We can repent and be forgiven instantly.

We can be baptized and our sins are washed away instantly.

Speaking in tongues instantly...thus receiving the Holy Ghost...not so much.

I find it sad that we teach our children and newbies these things when the Bible does not.

"Sorry, Johnny and Mary, but you didn't speak in tongues tonight. Try again tomorrow." And Johnny and Mary hope they don't die in the meantime or they will go to hell.

[Jason B]

.

[Jason B]

The stammering lips in the book of Isaiah is not what you find in pentecostal services.

True and neither are the "tongues" in many services what you find in the book of Acts.

[Jason B]

How do you mark the difference between stammering lips and speaking in tongues? At what point does "stammering lips" become "speaking in tongues?"

The fact that we as Pentecostals lump the two together is good evidence that we are quite confused about what "speaking in tongues" is, biblically speaking.

[Pressing-On]

I think the connection is made based on Paul using Isaiah 28:11 as a stepping stone to discuss the issue of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian church.

1 Cor 14
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul used Is 28:11 as a text about speaking in tongues, and since the Pentecostal churches "generally" believe tongues is the evidence of receiving the Spirit, thus the case is made that Is 28:11 is a prophecy about speaking in tongues and speaking in tongues was first done in Acts 2. Thus, Is 28:11 was fulfilled in Acts 2.

Also, right after Is 28:11, verse 12 says "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."

Given that the "rest" (ref: Heb 4:10, Matt 11:28), in NT terms is salvation (a.k.a receving the Holy Ghost), it is thus inferred that the "rest" prophesied in Is 28:12 is the coming of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant, which was also fulfilled in Acts 2.

So, when Is 28:11- 12 is read, it is understood as the rest (salvation a.k.a Holy Ghost) which God gives with the evidence of speaking in tongues, first fulfilled in Acts 2.

Moreover, in verse 16 of that same Isaiah chapter, we read:
Is 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Paul and Peter in Rom 10:11 and 1 Peter 2:6 respectively also teach that NT salvation is the fulfillment of Is 28:16. Thus, when you tie it all together, you should see why some teach Isaiah 28:11-16 as a prophecy that was fulfilled by way of the new covenant established in Acts 2.

my $0.02
This is how I believe and teach it!

:thumbsup :thumbsup

[Jason B]

But is that Biblical? Where do we see it in scripture where someone 'almost' received the Holy Ghost? And since it's a gift, how can one 'almost' receive it?

Luke 11:13

Oh wait, never mind......let's not cloud the issue with scripture.

[Dordrecht]

There are Biblical examples of people being 'close to accepting' Christ.

Where in the Bible?

[Jason B]

Pretty interesting thread in regard to this topic.......

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=33139

[MissBrattified]

Where in the Bible?

Acts 26:27-28 "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

[Hoovie]

It's a religious colloquialism that is based on questionable theology, and that's me being careful and polite.

I think I am with Jermyn on this... Though I should really look that word up first!

[n david]

I think the connection is made based on Paul using Isaiah 28:11 as a stepping stone to discuss the issue of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian church.

1 Cor 14
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul used Is 28:11 as a text about speaking in tongues, and since the Pentecostal churches "generally" believe tongues is the evidence of receiving the Spirit, thus the case is made that Is 28:11 is a prophecy about speaking in tongues and speaking in tongues was first done in Acts 2. Thus, Is 28:11 was fulfilled in Acts 2.

Also, right after Is 28:11, verse 12 says "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."

Given that the "rest" (ref: Heb 4:10, Matt 11:28), in NT terms is salvation (a.k.a receving the Holy Ghost), it is thus inferred that the "rest" prophesied in Is 28:12 is the coming of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant, which was also fulfilled in Acts 2.

So, when Is 28:11- 12 is read, it is understood as the rest (salvation a.k.a Holy Ghost) which God gives with the evidence of speaking in tongues, first fulfilled in Acts 2.

Moreover, in verse 16 of that same Isaiah chapter, we read:
Is 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Paul and Peter in Rom 10:11 and 1 Peter 2:6 respectively also teach that NT salvation is the fulfillment of Is 28:16. Thus, when you tie it all together, you should see why some teach Isaiah 28:11-16 as a prophecy that was fulfilled by way of the new covenant established in Acts 2.

my $0.02
That's a good description of how it's taken out of context and misapplied.

[Praxeas]

It's a religious colloquialism that is based on questionable theology, and that's me being careful and polite.

I think I am with Jermyn on this... Though I should really look that word up first!

This??

http://ventriloquistcentral.com/frank-marshall-ventriloquist-dummy-owners/images/george-boosey-and-oscar.jpg

[Praxeas]

.
Wow....profound thoughts Jason.. :heeheehee

Is that the size of your brain?

Or was it easier to count your IQ using dots? :slaphappy

Or wait...maybe that was your one good, beady eye? :laffatu




:nahnah

[n david]

Let's look at the scriptures concerning stammering lips.

I believe that the Holy Ghost is the 'rest' promised to his people,
God sent the Holy Ghost to the Jews first, but they as a nation would not accept it, would not hear, therefore He blinded their eyes as it says in Rom 11.

Paul reminds the church of these scriptures in 1 Cor. Although he doesn't use word for word, these are the scriptures that he is referring to.

Remember, the 12-13-and 14th chapters are Paul's instructions about the Gifts of the Spirit, and the 14th is mostly about tongues.

And just as the Religious world would not hear the gospel, in that day, so also today much of the Religious world rejects it. And just as God sent blindness to Israel, in this generation He is sending the 'Strong Delusion.' But that is another subject.
IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them.

Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

[n david]

Wow....that's not a small pic.

[houston]

Wow! simply wow! That's an ignorant perception that floats around. People living in COUNTRIES on the CONTINENT of Africa speak languages that consists of syllables, words, etc. and can be written in letters. carry on...There is a language spoken on the continent of Africa that sounds like clicking. That's all they do is click.

I heard a story about a woman who would start clicking when the Holy Sp... when the Holy Ghost would move upon her. She was embarrassed and the laughing stock of the church. A missionary came through and recognized that she was speaking in the language of that tribe. She was never embarrassed again after that.

[houston]

How is that an ignorant perception? I didn't say that it was a language that could not be written down. Just that it was one example of a language that simply doesn't follow the linguistic pattern that we're familiar with in the Euro-Western culture. Or in Asian culture (which we're more familiar with because of the globalized influence of China and Japan). The "tongue clicking" consonant is an articulation that does not exist in Germanic and Latin languages. It doesn't mean it's not as valid a language as any other around the globe. That's the point. :dogpatsee my reply above

[houston]

This is how I believe and teach it! :thumbsup :thumbsupYou teach that the sign of judgement against the Jews is the initial evidence of speaking in tongues?

[Praxeas]

Wow....that's not a small pic.
If it didn't make you want to gouge your eyes out then I have failed :bigbaby

[houston]

Luke 11:13 Oh wait, never mind......let's not cloud the issue with scripture.Are you serious?

[houston]

Wow....profound thoughts Jason.. :heeheehee Is that the size of your brain? Or was it easier to count your IQ using dots? :slaphappy Or wait...maybe that was your one good, beady eye? :laffatu :nahnahSo only admin can treat people like ........? or is it ok if I add emoticons?

[houston]

IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them. Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.We have a winner!!!!

[Praxeas]

Wow! simply wow!

That's an ignorant perception that floats around. People living in COUNTRIES on the CONTINENT of Africa speak languages that consists of syllables, words, etc. and can be written in letters.

carry on...
Lala has two syllables and four letters

BTW La in Hebrew is not

So they could be going "not not not not not...." yeah sounds silly haha

But seriously "la" could mean a lot of things in any number of current or dead languages...

But honestly I tend to believe a lot of people are just tripping over the Ls in "Halleluyah"

[Praxeas]

Oh...BTW Abba is considered a "nonsensical word" like "dada"

[n david]

Lala has two syllables and four letters

BTW La in Hebrew is not

So they could be going "not not not not not...." yeah sounds silly haha

But seriously "la" could mean a lot of things in any number of current or dead languages...

But honestly I tend to believe a lot of people are just tripping over the Ls in "Halleluyah"
:lol

[KeptByTheWord]

We should be looking for the fruit of the gift, the change that it brings into a life, rather than using the measuring stick of tongues.

Tongues recorded in the book of Acts were the initial evidence of the HG taking up residence in a believer's heart, then... Paul begins to teach the church about the fruits of the spirit, why? Because if that gift has truly been received and activated in the heart and life of a believer, the fruit of the spirit begins to work. Love begins to be the language lived out in the life of the one who received the gift. Tongues are not a measuring stick. The fruit of the spirit becomes the evidence, the real measuring stick in the life of a believer, not tongues.

For too long, the church has been focused on the tongues, although it was the initial evidence as we see in Acts. It was an obvious thing that people could see and hear. But after that initial evidence, there is no other reference in the book of Acts to tongues, other than initial evidence. Please don't get me wrong, I believe that tongues is a gift that God gives us to communicate with him, and for the spirit to intercede through us, and is a special gift from Jesus to his church.

However, tongues are not mentioned in Paul's writings to the NT church as an indication of their salvation. Not once. Instead, the fruit of the spirit are taught as indicators for the measurement of where one is in their relationship with Jesus.

This needs to be understood better by the church as a whole. The initial evidence of tongues, and then fruit of the spirit that comes as a result of a transformed spirit-filled life, needs to be taught equally, working together side by side, not one without the other.

[KeptByTheWord]

Oh...BTW Abba is considered a "nonsensical word" like "dada"

Prax... I just wrote a serious post, and not trying to derail the subject at hand here... but ... this post is just ...making me :lol... are you still stuck on palindomes? Abba... dada???

:lol

[votivesoul]

Obviously, we have no accord regarding pneumatology. That's pretty standard around here, from what I've seen and read.

So I will only say this: people, including children, have free wills. They can reach for God with all their heart, soul, and strength, and just as they are about to receive a touch from God, turn away, step back, and reject what was about to happen. It happens all the time, not just with receiving the Holy Spirit or speaking in tongues.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift given out of mercy by a loving Savior. It is never forced on anyone, ever. God doesn't operate like that. He is more than willing to give, and give, and keep giving, as long as faith in Him is present. People can reach out to receive, and receive, and receive, but draw away at the last moment.

This is obvious in all aspects of life. I can almost type ____, and change my mind last second, and not type it. I can almost say ____, and not say it, saying something else instead. I can reach out to receive a gift from someone at Christmas time or on my birthday, and pull back last minute, deciding I don't want it, letting it fall to the floor. I can almost take a bite out of a piece of food, and stop short when someone yells "Stop, the dog was on the table licking that before you came into the room"!

I can almost receive the Gospel and at the last minute, decide against giving my life to the Lord. I can think about repenting, and be on the verge of confessing my sins to God, and then hold up, and not do so. I can be this close to getting into the water and being baptized, and change my mind.

Just as a man or a woman can literally run from the altar a second after they've been asked to say "I do", and so, not marry, so, too can a person, even a child, for whatever reason, run from the Holy Spirit a second after God first moves on them in order to baptize them.

Did that person almost get married? Yes, almost, but not quite. Did that person almost receive the Holy Spirit, but didn't? Yes, almost. But not quite.

Did that person almost speak in tongues? Yes, but clamped up and refused to do so, for whatever reason, moments before they would have otherwise spoken in tongues. In that clamping up, since the Spirit is compared to living/running waters flowing out of one's side, it should be no surprise that when a person resists speaking in tongues, but still doesn't want to let go of the Spirit, either, that an impasse will occur at the point of entry, i.e. the mouth. This causes people to, for lack of a better word, stammer.

Should stammer be connected back to Isaiah 28:11-12? Someone else can argue over that. But stammering, shaking, quivering, or whatever word/synonym one wants to use, is still something that happens, especially to kids. Is it in the Bible? No, but there is also no Bible that states a child ever received the Holy Spirit, and yet children all over the world receive the Holy Spirit constantly (while it is promised to children a la Acts 2:39, we read no actual account of it occurring, but know it must have and still does). So, looking in the Word for something and not finding it printed exactly as you want doesn't mean it's not legitimate or not from God.

[Praxeas]

Prax... I just wrote a serious post, and not trying to derail the subject at hand here... but ... this post is just ...making me :lol... are you still stuck on palindomes? Abba... dada???

:lol
lol...I honestly forgot about that :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

So only admin can treat people like ........? or is it ok if I add emoticons?

:grumpyTry this one when you feel moody

[n david]

We should be looking for the fruit of the gift, the change that it brings into a life, rather than using the measuring stick of tongues.

Tongues recorded in the book of Acts were the initial evidence of the HG taking up residence in a believer's heart, then... Paul begins to teach the church about the fruits of the spirit, why? Because if that gift has truly been received and activated in the heart and life of a believer, the fruit of the spirit begins to work. Love begins to be the language lived out in the life of the one who received the gift. Tongues are not a measuring stick. The fruit of the spirit becomes the evidence, the real measuring stick in the life of a believer, not tongues.

For too long, the church has been focused on the tongues, although it was the initial evidence as we see in Acts. It was an obvious thing that people could see and hear. But after that initial evidence, there is no other reference in the book of Acts to tongues, other than initial evidence. Please don't get me wrong, I believe that tongues is a gift that God gives us to communicate with him, and for the spirit to intercede through us, and is a special gift from Jesus to his church.

However, tongues are not mentioned in Paul's writings to the NT church as an indication of their salvation. Not once. Instead, the fruit of the spirit are taught as indicators for the measurement of where one is in their relationship with Jesus.

This needs to be understood better by the church as a whole. The initial evidence of tongues, and then fruit of the spirit that comes as a result of a transformed spirit-filled life, needs to be taught equally, working together side by side, not one without the other.
Paul's epistles were to believers, and as such it's likely they already had received the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. To downplay its significance just because Paul write it would be wrong. I do agree that after the initial evidence, one must move forward and mature as a believer, and in doing so should demonstrate the fruit of the spirit.

[n david]

Obviously, we have no accord regarding pneumatology. That's pretty standard around here, from what I've seen and read.

So I will only say this: people, including children, have free wills. They can reach for God with all their heart, soul, and strength, and just as they are about to receive a touch from God, turn away, step back, and reject what was about to happen. It happens all the time, not just with receiving the Holy Spirit or speaking in tongues.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift given out of mercy by a loving Savior. It is never forced on anyone, ever. God doesn't operate like that. He is more than willing to give, and give, and keep giving, as long as faith in Him is present. People can reach out to receive, and receive, and receive, but draw away at the last moment.

This is obvious in all aspects of life. I can almost type ____, and change my mind last second, and not type it. I can almost say ____, and not say it, saying something else instead. I can reach out to receive a gift from someone at Christmas time or on my birthday, and pull back last minute, deciding I don't want it, letting it fall to the floor. I can almost take a bite out of a piece of food, and stop short when someone yells "Stop, the dog was on the table licking that before you came into the room"!

I can almost receive the Gospel and at the last minute, decide against giving my life to the Lord. I can think about repenting, and be on the verge of confessing my sins to God, and then hold up, and not do so. I can be this close to getting into the water and being baptized, and change my mind.

Just as a man or a woman can literally run from the altar a second after they've been asked to say "I do", and so, not marry, so, too can a person, even a child, for whatever reason, run from the Holy Spirit a second after God first moves on them in order to baptize them.

Did that person almost get married? Yes, almost, but not quite. Did that person almost receive the Holy Spirit, but didn't? Yes, almost. But not quite.

Did that person almost speak in tongues? Yes, but clamped up and refused to do so, for whatever reason, moments before they would have otherwise spoken in tongues. In that clamping up, since the Spirit is compared to living/running waters flowing out of one's side, it should be no surprise that when a person resists speaking in tongues, but still doesn't want to let go of the Spirit, either, that an impasse will occur at the point of entry, i.e. the mouth. This causes people to, for lack of a better word, stammer.

Should stammer be connected back to Isaiah 28:11-12? Someone else can argue over that. But stammering, shaking, quivering, or whatever word/synonym one wants to use, is still something that happens, especially to kids. Is it in the Bible? No, but there is also no Bible that states a child ever received the Holy Spirit, and yet children all over the world receive the Holy Spirit constantly (while it is promised to children a la Acts 2:39, we read no actual account of it occurring, but know it must have and still does). So, looking in the Word for something and not finding it printed exactly as you want doesn't mean it's not legitimate or not from God.
:thumbsup

[TGBTG]

That's a good description of how it's taken out of context and misapplied.

IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them.

Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

[Dordrecht]

Paul's epistles were to believers, and as such it's likely they already had received the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.

[n david]

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.
Likely so; however, the letters were addressed to the "saints," "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Paul's Epistles were to instruct the saints, not non-christians.

[Pressing-On]

That's a good description of how it's taken out of context and misapplied.

IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them.

Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

Isn't Isaiah 28 speaking to the religious "leaders" of Israel?

7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

How is "rest" which is being described as a "refreshing" also a judgment to the people? He rather seems to prophecy that He will deliver the people from the rulers of Israel.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Verse 17 seems to begin with the judgment to those that don't accept Him.

[n david]

Isn't Isaiah 28 speaking to the religious "leaders" of Israel?

7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

How is "rest" which is being described as a "refreshing" also a judgment to the people? He rather seems to prophecy that He will deliver the people from the rulers of Israel.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Verse 17 seems to begin with the judgment to those that don't accept Him.
The rest isn't the judgement...the part about stammering lips and other tongues is speaking of judgement as a result of foreign invaders. And yes, it is directed towards the rulers and prophets.

[KeptByTheWord]

We should be looking for the fruit of the gift, the change that it brings into a life, rather than using the measuring stick of tongues.

Tongues recorded in the book of Acts were the initial evidence of the HG taking up residence in a believer's heart, then... Paul begins to teach the church about the fruits of the spirit, why? Because if that gift has truly been received and activated in the heart and life of a believer, the fruit of the spirit begins to work. Love begins to be the language lived out in the life of the one who received the gift. Tongues are not a measuring stick. The fruit of the spirit becomes the evidence, the real measuring stick in the life of a believer, not tongues.

For too long, the church has been focused on the tongues, although it was the initial evidence as we see in Acts. It was an obvious thing that people could see and hear. But after that initial evidence, there is no other reference in the book of Acts to tongues, other than initial evidence. Please don't get me wrong, I believe that tongues is a gift that God gives us to communicate with him, and for the spirit to intercede through us, and is a special gift from Jesus to his church.

However, tongues are not mentioned in Paul's writings to the NT church as an indication of their salvation. Not once. Instead, the fruit of the spirit are taught as indicators for the measurement of where one is in their relationship with Jesus.

This needs to be understood better by the church as a whole. The initial evidence of tongues, and then fruit of the spirit that comes as a result of a transformed spirit-filled life, needs to be taught equally, working together side by side, not one without the other.


Paul's epistles were to believers, and as such it's likely they already had received the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. To downplay its significance just because Paul write it would be wrong.

If you were to write a letter to a church today, would there not be sinners, and saints both present and listening? If not, that church is a dead place, with no active work of the spirit there.

So, just because Paul was writing to the saints, he would have to still be addressing those who were in the process of believing. So, it remains that if the tongues initial evidence were as important as the OP place it as, that Paul would have at least ONCE said something about it. But he doesn't.

However, the yard stick brought up constantly in his writings is fruit of the spirit, which is also exactly what Jesus taught too (if the branch isn't bearing fruit, it needs to be pruned).

The whole premise that the NT was written to "believers" is how many OP like to skip around the whole tongues teaching, and it is a broken analogy. Paul's writings were indeed to the church, but that church would have included both saints and sinners alike who needed to hear the whole gospel.

I do agree that after the initial evidence, one must move forward and mature as a believer, and in doing so should demonstrate the fruit of the spirit.

Amen!

[n david]

If you were to write a letter to a church today, would there not be sinners, and saints both present and listening? If not, that church is a dead place, with no active work of the spirit there.

So, just because Paul was writing to the saints, he would have to still be addressing those who were in the process of believing. So, it remains that if the tongues initial evidence were as important as the OP place it as, that Paul would have at least ONCE said something about it. But he doesn't.

However, the yard stick brought up constantly in his writings is fruit of the spirit, which is also exactly what Jesus taught too (if the branch isn't bearing fruit, it needs to be pruned).

The whole premise that the NT was written to "believers" is how many OP like to skip around the whole tongues teaching, and it is a broken analogy. Paul's writings were indeed to the church, but that church would have included both saints and sinners alike who needed to hear the whole gospel.

1) Each of the Epistles are addressed to either "saints," the "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Not one is addressed to the unbeliever. And just because the Epistles are address to the saints, and not sinners doesn't mean there weren't sinners present, or that the church was dead. It simply means the content of the Epistles was not meant for sinners.

2) The content of the Epistles is for those who have been saved. I don't see anything in Paul's writings which is for the unbeliever.

3) I can turn your comment around and write that the whole premise that Paul's Epistles doesn't mention tongues as initial evidence is just a way for people to skip around the whole tongues as initial evidence thing. Paul didn't need to address initial evidence because he was writing to those who already received it.

[Pressing-On]

The rest isn't the judgement...the part about stammering lips and other tongues is speaking of judgement as a result of foreign invaders. And yes, it is directed towards the rulers and prophets.
Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.

[KeptByTheWord]

1) Each of the Epistles are addressed to either "saints," the "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Not one is addressed to the unbeliever. And just because the Epistles are address to the saints, and not sinners doesn't mean there weren't sinners present, or that the church was dead. It simply means the content of the Epistles was not meant for sinners.

2) The content of the Epistles is for those who have been saved. I don't see anything in Paul's writings which is for the unbeliever.

3) I can turn your comment around and write that the whole premise that Paul's Epistles doesn't mention tongues as initial evidence is just a way for people to skip around the whole tongues as initial evidence thing. Paul didn't need to address initial evidence because he was writing to those who already received it.

You have to be able to admit NDavid, that if Paul recognized the heaven/hell aspect that the OPs ascribe to the initial evidence tongues doctrine, that it would have been mentioned in passing, or referenced to at least ONCE in his writings?

But no, of course you don't want to admit that, because then that crumbles the whole tongues heaven/hell doctrine.

Don't get me wrong. There is no doubt Acts has clear proof of tongues as initial evidence. But it doesn't go any farther than that. The OP have taken it and placed it as salvational, which Paul or any of the other NT writers did.

You are side stepping the issue, as all OP do. You are upholding a doctrine that is used to send people to hell, that should not.

Instead, if more emphasis was placed on the fruits of the spirit, as Paul did, then perhaps we would see revivals in church that we are desiring. But people believe that just because they do or do not speak in tongues, that it is determining their salvation... and Paul NEVER once said that.

[n david]

Neither of Paul's Epistles to the believers in Thessalonica didn't mention baptism. Are we to believe because he didn't write about baptism that it's not important?

When reading the Epistles, you have to understand that the Epistles aren't the full doctrine of the early church, nor of Paul's beliefs. Each Epistle was written to a certain body of believers, for a specific reason.

The lack of something written shouldn't suggest its lack of importance in doctrine.

[KeptByTheWord]

Neither of Paul's Epistles to the believers in Thessalonica didn't mention baptism. Are we to believe because he didn't write about baptism that it's not important?

When reading the Epistles, you have to understand that the Epistles aren't the full doctrine of the early church, nor of Paul's beliefs. Each Epistle was written to a certain body of believers, for a specific reason.

The lack of something written shouldn't suggest its lack of importance in doctrine.

But baptism is mentioned many times in other epistles :) Sorry.. that point didn't quite make its mark ....

[KeptByTheWord]

Where in this scripture is tongues mentioned as salvational, doctrinal, and foundational?

Hebrews 6:1-2 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the head and of eternal judgment."

[n david]

You have to be able to admit NDavid, that if Paul recognized the heaven/hell aspect that the OPs ascribe to the initial evidence tongues doctrine, that it would have been mentioned in passing, or referenced to at least ONCE in his writings?

But no, of course you don't want to admit that, because then that crumbles the whole tongues heaven/hell doctrine.

Don't get me wrong. There is no doubt Acts has clear proof of tongues as initial evidence. But it doesn't go any farther than that. The OP have taken it and placed it as salvational, which Paul or any of the other NT writers did.

You are side stepping the issue, as all OP do. You are upholding a doctrine that is used to send people to hell, that should not.

Instead, if more emphasis was placed on the fruits of the spirit, as Paul did, then perhaps we would see revivals in church that we are desiring. But people believe that just because they do or do not speak in tongues, that it is determining their salvation... and Paul NEVER once said that.
I'm not sidestepping the issue. I'm simply stating that Paul didn't need to address tongues as initial evidence because he was speaking to the saints -- who had already received the experience.

Again, as stated in my last post, the lack of something written does not suggest its lack of importance in doctrine.

Did the saints in Thessalonica miss out because Paul didn't mention baptism in either of his two Epistles?

Each Epistle was written to address a certain situation the saints were dealing with. The Epistles are not intended to be Paul's beliefs or a synopsis of the early church doctrine.

Your argument reminds me of people who say, "Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin."

[n david]

But baptism is mentioned many times in other epistles :) Sorry.. that point didn't quite make its mark ....
Not to the believers in Thessalonica. Evidently it didn't matter much to that church, according to your argument.

[n david]

Where in this scripture is tongues mentioned as salvational, doctrinal, and foundational?

Hebrews 6:1-2 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the head and of eternal judgment."
"Doctrine of baptisms..." Plural. Water and the Spirit. Mark 1:8, "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." What again is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

Speaking in tongues.

[KeptByTheWord]

I'm not sidestepping the issue. I'm simply stating that Paul didn't need to address tongues as initial evidence because he was speaking to the saints -- who had already received the experience.

Again, as stated in my last post, the lack of something written does not suggest its lack of importance in doctrine.

Did the saints in Thessalonica miss out because Paul didn't mention baptism in either of his two Epistles?

Each Epistle was written to address a certain situation the saints were dealing with. The Epistles are not intended to be Paul's beliefs or a synopsis of the early church doctrine.

Your argument reminds me of people who say, "Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin."

Paul mentions baptism many times in his writings, and even deals with tongues too. Yet never once does he mention tongues as a salvational thing. It would have been mentioned, along with baptism, if it is that essential to salvation.

As far as the homosexuality bit, Jesus never taught for women to have uncut hair either. ;)

Not to the believers in Thessalonica. Evidently it didn't matter much to that church, according to your argument.

Regardless, Paul does mention baptism in many of his writings.... tongues as a salvational thing is NEVER mentioned, and it seems that the scripture I posted from Hebrews should certainly have mentioned it, if it was that important of a doctrinal issue :)

[KeptByTheWord]

"Doctrine of baptisms..." Plural. Water and the Spirit. Mark 1:8, "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." What again is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

Speaking in tongues.

Sure, tongues is the initial evidence. We see that in Acts. But, what we are trying to discuss is the whole "if you don't speak in tongues you are going to hell": issue instead of teaching.... after receiving the initial evidence of tongues, if you don't begin to produce fruit of the spirit, then something went wrong, and the spirit of God not being active in your life, which could cause you to fall by the wayside, much as the seeds fell by the wayside in the parable Jesus taught.

The point I am trying to make is ... quite emphasizing the "tongues" as salvational, instead, teach on the fruit of the spirit, which is a far better measuring stick of one's relationship with the Lord.... which is what Paul did all through his writings, but the OP refuse to do that for the most part.

Tongues are looked at for evidence, instead of fruit of the spirit.

A believer must move on in his relationship with the Lord, and begin to produce fruit of the spirit, and THAT is the measuring stick that the Lord uses, not the tongues.

[KeptByTheWord]

When Jesus came to the churches in the book of Revelations, nothing is ever mentioned about them not speaking in tongues. Nope. Not there.

Instead, what we find is Jesus speaking to them of overcoming. How do you overcome, except by the spirit of the Lord producing fruit in your life, that in turn weeds out and destroys the work of the flesh? These are the things Paul, and the other NT writers spent time teaching. We must be overcomers.

Rev. 2:19 "I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works, and the last to be more than the first."

What is Jesus referencing here? Tongues? Nope. Fruit of the spirit... charity (love), faith, patience!

Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against such there is no law."

[n david]

Sure, tongues is the initial evidence. We see that in Acts. But, what we are trying to discuss is the whole "if you don't speak in tongues you are going to hell": issue instead of teaching.... after receiving the initial evidence of tongues, if you don't begin to produce fruit of the spirit, then something went wrong, and the spirit of God not being active in your life, which could cause you to fall by the wayside, much as the seeds fell by the wayside in the parable Jesus taught.

The point I am trying to make is ... quite emphasizing the "tongues" as salvational, instead, teach on the fruit of the spirit, which is a far better measuring stick of one's relationship with the Lord.... which is what Paul did all through his writings, but the OP refuse to do that for the most part.

Tongues are looked at for evidence, instead of fruit of the spirit.

A believer must move on in his relationship with the Lord, and begin to produce fruit of the spirit, and THAT is the measuring stick that the Lord uses, not the tongues.
You asked where in Hebrews 6:1-2 is tongues mentioned as salvational, doctrinal and foundational. It is certainly doctrinal and foundational, as pointed out already.

Is tongues salvific? IMO it is. You seem to try to take both sides by saying "sure, it's the initial evidence," but then stating it shouldn't be considered if you don't speak in tongues, you're going to hell.

Do you believe receiving the Holy Ghost is part of salvation, or subsequent to salvation? If you believe it's part of salvation, then a person must receive the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence being they speak in other tongues.

If you believe the Holy Ghost to be subsequent to salvation, then it's not important to have the initial evidence of tongues.

I would be classified a three-stepper. I believe repentance, and baptism of both water and the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that once the initial evidence has been exhibited, people should mature and demonstrate the fruit of the spirit in their lives. I would also agree that there is an overabundance of emphasis placed solely on tongues as a sign of salvation, rather than the gifts of the spirit. There's also the error of clothes and appearance being an indicator of salvation as well, but that's another discussion.

[n david]

When Jesus came to the churches in the book of Revelations, nothing is ever mentioned about them not speaking in tongues. Nope. Not there.

Instead, what we find is Jesus speaking to them of overcoming. How do you overcome, except by the spirit of the Lord producing fruit in your life, that in turn weeds out and destroys the work of the flesh? These are the things Paul, and the other NT writers spent time teaching. We must be overcomers.

Rev. 2:19 "I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works, and the last to be more than the first."

What is Jesus referencing here? Tongues? Nope. Fruit of the spirit... charity (love), faith, patience!

Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against such there is no law."
Again, it's to the churches -- the one's who have already received the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. :)

In your argument about Paul's letters to Thessalonica, you mentioned well Paul had mentioned baptism a lot in other letters....to use that argument, Jesus already said you must be born of water and spirit

Oh, Jesus didn't mention baptism in Rev either... :happydance

[KeptByTheWord]

You asked where in Hebrews 6:1-2 is tongues mentioned as salvational, doctrinal and foundational. It is certainly doctrinal and foundational, as pointed out already.

Is tongues salvific? IMO it is. You seem to try to take both sides by saying "sure, it's the initial evidence," but then stating it shouldn't be considered if you don't speak in tongues, you're going to hell.

Do you believe receiving the Holy Ghost is part of salvation, or subsequent to salvation? If you believe it's part of salvation, then a person must receive the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence being they speak in other tongues.

If you believe the Holy Ghost to be subsequent to salvation, then it's not important to have the initial evidence of tongues.

I would be classified a three-stepper. I believe repentance, and baptism of both water and the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that once the initial evidence has been exhibited, people should mature and demonstrate the fruit of the spirit in their lives. I would also agree that there is an overabundance of emphasis placed solely on tongues as a sign of salvation, rather than the gifts of the spirit. There's also the error of clothes and appearance being an indicator of salvation as well, but that's another discussion.

Again, it's to the churches -- the one's who have already received the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. :)

In your argument about Paul's letters to Thessalonica, you mentioned well Paul had mentioned baptism a lot in other letters....to use that argument, Jesus already said you must be born of water and spirit

Oh, Jesus didn't mention baptism in Rev either... :happydance

The emphasis on tongues is wrong. Paul never once emphasized that, of which you have basically had to admit. The emphasis should rather be on fruits of the spirit. No Jesus didn't mention baptism in Rev, neither did he mention tongues, nor uncut hair, or beards, or any of the lovely issues that are dead horses around here.

Why not focus on what Paul taught constantly, and what Jesus saw as important .... fruit of the spirit needed to overcome?

Why indeed?

Because tongues are something that "man" can use to pinpoint, and wield authority with.... but the fruit of the spirit being something that the Lord can only really see into our hearts, and judge, thus the power to control and exert power and authority over people... that is WHY tongues are used to condemn people to hell... because it is something man can judge... but the LORD is the righteous judge, not man, and he is looking at our hearts, and if we are producing fruit of the spirit in our lives to overcome.

I see it this way... the OP uses the evidence of tongues to control and manipulate people in the way of man... the Lord's way is to judge the heart and the fruit, something man cannot do, unless he is operating through the gifts of the spirit.

[n david]

Do you believe the Holy Ghost is part of, or subsequent to salvation?

[n david]

The emphasis on tongues is wrong. Paul never once emphasized that, of which you have basically had to admit. The emphasis should rather be on fruits of the spirit. No Jesus didn't mention baptism in Rev, neither did he mention tongues, nor uncut hair, or beards, or any of the lovely issues that are dead horses around here.
Why would Paul need to emphasis something they already had received or experienced? Paul didn't emphasize baptism in his comments about it. In fact, 1 Corinthians 1:17 says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." So did Paul not believe he should baptize people?

Again, the point of the Epistles was Paul addressing a specific issue in each body of believers. There was no need for Paul to write the entire doctrine of salvation or his beliefs, because they were known and experienced already.

Why not focus on what Paul taught constantly, and what Jesus saw as important .... fruit of the spirit needed to overcome?
I can agree with this. We should focus more on the fruits and gifts of the spirit for believers who have already experienced the initial evidence. We should also preach the Gospel, which is the death, burial and resurrection; or repentance, baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

[KeptByTheWord]

I can agree with this. We should focus more on the fruits and gifts of the spirit for believers who have already experienced the initial evidence.

Amen!

[Real Realism]

If one is not saved until they receive the Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues (and not saying I don't disagree with this) - in the case of the woman who's only ever spoken "lalalalalala" stammering lips...for years...is she not saved? Does she need to "press harder"? How would you counsel her?

[obriencp]

if tongues are a sign to the unbeliever, then a believer that feels they are saved doesn't need that sign. It's the bystanders that don't believe the individual is saved because they haven't seen the sign THEY need to accept them into the body. Wasn't water baptism also done as a sign to others of ones conversion into the body? ...sorry, different topic.

[Pressing-On]

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

*bump* for David...

[TGBTG]

And someone said AFF was going down??

just have to bring on standards or tongues or Godhead to light the fire!!!

:happydance

[n david]

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

*bump* for David...
Isaiah 28:16, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed."

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6, "For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

If you read the context of these verses, it's not misapplied.

The context and meaning of Isa 28:16 is Jesus is the cornerstone and only sure foundation for those who believe. Paul and Peter both applied it correctly.

This is not at all similar to Isa 28:11. That scripture is speaking about foreign invaders bringing judgement against Israel.

[Pressing-On]

Isaiah 28:16, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed."

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6, "For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

If you read the context of these verses, it's not misapplied.

The context and meaning of Isa 28:16 is Jesus is the cornerstone and only sure foundation for those who believe. Paul and Peter both applied it correctly.

This is not at all similar to Isa 28:11. That scripture is speaking about foreign invaders bringing judgement against Israel.

My response from page 10 remains the same. Care to comment? Because I believe the interpretation is more than a "surface" view of the text.

Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.

I have to continue to agree with TGBTG on this one.

[TGBTG]

Isaiah 28:16, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed."

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6, "For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

If you read the context of these verses, it's not misapplied.

The context and meaning of Isa 28:16 is Jesus is the cornerstone and only sure foundation for those who believe. Paul and Peter both applied it correctly.

This is not at all similar to Isa 28:11. That scripture is speaking about foreign invaders bringing judgement against Israel.

How is the context in verse 11 any different from verse 16? Isn't verse 16 a direct continuation of the discourse in verse 11? At what verse between verse 11 and verse 16 does the context change?

[n david]

My response from page 10 remains the same. Care to comment? Because I believe the interpretation is more than a "surface" view of the text.

Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.
I like how the Pulpit Commentary puts it:

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

The issue of Isaiah was the priests and prophets were refusing to listen to the voice of the Lord. Because of that, God sent the Assyrians against them in judgement -- this is where the "stammering lips and another tongue," (or ESV says, "people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue.)

The issue in which Paul writes to the church in Corinth is that they are all trying to speak in tongues and there is confusion. That's why Paul takes care to instruct the church in the difference between tongues and prophecy, and the reason for each.

Look at the preceding verse, where Paul admonishes them to not be like children in their thinking, but to be mature. He then uses a paraphrase of Isaiah's writing to tell the church, it's not good to do this - to cause this mass confusion of everyone speaking in tongues. In verse 23 he warns of people coming into the church will think you're out of your minds.

Paul isn't using Isaiah's words to bolster speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost; he uses it as a warning.

[n david]

How is the context in verse 11 any different from verse 16? Isn't verse 16 a direct continuation of the discourse in verse 11? At what verse between verse 11 and verse 16 does the context change?
Using Isaiah 28:11 as proof of the Acts 2 experience is incorrect. It's not what Isa 28:11 was speaking about. Even Paul wasn't quoting that verse as a kind of proof of the Holy Ghost.

When Paul quoted Isa 28:16, it was in the correct context.

[Pressing-On]

I like how the Pulpit Commentary puts it:

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

The issue of Isaiah was the priests and prophets were refusing to listen to the voice of the Lord. Because of that, God sent the Assyrians against them in judgement -- this is where the "stammering lips and another tongue," (or ESV says, "people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue.)

The issue in which Paul writes to the church in Corinth is that they are all trying to speak in tongues and there is confusion. That's why Paul takes care to instruct the church in the difference between tongues and prophecy, and the reason for each.

Look at the preceding verse, where Paul admonishes them to not be like children in their thinking, but to be mature. He then uses a paraphrase of Isaiah's writing to tell the church, it's not good to do this - to cause this mass confusion of everyone speaking in tongues. In verse 23 he warns of people coming into the church will think you're out of your minds.

Paul isn't using Isaiah's words to bolster speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost; he uses it as a warning.
That may be true in some cases, referring to your quote from Pulpit Commentary, except, again, Paul furthers his point by beginning with "Wherefore/so too" tongues are for a sign."

I can only see these two passages able to claim the intertexual meaning effects as valid because it can credibly be demonstrated that they are in some sense properties of the text's own literary structure.

As TGBTG pointed out, when does the context change between verse 11 and 16? Being that Paul uses it to support tongues, it can't be viewed as changing context mid-stride, IMO.

[TGBTG]

Using Isaiah 28:11 as proof of the Acts 2 experience is incorrect. It's not what Isa 28:11 was speaking about. Even Paul wasn't quoting that verse as a kind of proof of the Holy Ghost.

When Paul quoted Isa 28:16, it was in the correct context.

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.

[Praxeas]

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.

Maybe but they were still written to believers

[Pressing-On]

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.

I Cor 14:21-22 "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

The only thing that I could readily deduce from Paul's quoting of Isaiah 28:11 and a warning given, is that now He brings tongues/languages into the NT church, "...and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." He furthers the comparison by saying, "Wherefore/here too, tongues are for a sign."

[n david]

As TGBTG pointed out, when does the context change between verse 11 and 16? Being that Paul uses it to support tongues, it can't be viewed as changing context mid-stride, IMO.
Verse 11 wasn't used to support tongues by Paul.

You keep asserting that the Paul quoted Is 28:16 in the correct context, yet, you have not shown how the context changes between verse 11 and verse 16.
How many times do I have to go over this? I've already shown the context of both in a previous post. Actually, I have to correct something.

Paul, in Romans 9:33, quotes Isa 8:14, not Isa 28:16.

Peter, in 1 Peter 2:6, refers to Ps 118:22 and quotes Isa 28:16.

These were in context.

Paul makes a statement of stumbling over the stumbling stone, then quotes Isa 8:14 -- in context.

Peter writes of building a spiritual house, and uses Ps 118:22 and Isa 28:16 to illustrate Jesus as the cornerstone.

Neither Romans 9:33 nor 1 Peter 2:6 are about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues.


Isaiah 28
Verse 11
Isaiah is speaking of judgement by the Assyrians. It is NOT about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. I understand some have tried twisting it to say that it does, but when looking at the passage, it's not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. It's about the Assyrians bringing judgement.

1 Corinthians 14
Verse 21
Written as a warning against the confusion cause by the whole church speaking in tongues. Yes, it says "thus" or "wherefore" tongues are a sign, but it's not keeping the actual context of Isa 28:11. Paul is writing that tongues are a sign of God speaking to His people. That's it. That's the extent of the comparison.

This is why this it's important to consider this when reading that verse

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

Paul is referring to the words, not the exact context or meaning of Isa 28:11.

[TGBTG]

The only thing that I could readily deduce from Paul's quoting of Isaiah 28:11 and a warning given, is that now He brings tongues/languages into the NT church, "...and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." He furthers the comparison by saying, "Wherefore/here too, tongues are for a sign."

Is this what you're saying:

Paul was teaching "just like tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews that Isaiah was prophesying to, even so, tongues in the new testament are a sign to unbelievers

[Pressing-On]

Is this what you're saying:

Paul was teaching "just like tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews that Isaiah was prophesying to, even so, tongues in the new testament are a sign to unbelievers

Yes, I am pretty much saying that. Which is a separate issue from instructions on operating in the gifts.

[Pressing-On]

Isaiah 28
Verse 11
Isaiah is speaking of judgement by the Assyrians. It is NOT about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. I understand some have tried twisting it to say that it does, but when looking at the passage, it's not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. It's about the Assyrians bringing judgement.

1 Corinthians 14
Verse 21
Written as a warning against the confusion cause by the whole church speaking in tongues. Yes, it says "thus" or "wherefore" tongues are a sign, but it's not keeping the actual context of Isa 28:11. Paul is writing that tongues are a sign of God speaking to His people. That's it. That's the extent of the comparison.

This is why this it's important to consider this when reading that verse

Paul is referring to the words, not the exact context or meaning of Isa 28:11.

It throws a bit of kink in the system when you continue reading and find yourself in Isaiah 28:16. It still appears you're changing the context in the middle of an ongoing dialogue.

I'll reflect a little more on what you've said though.

[TGBTG]

Verse 11 wasn't used to support tongues by Paul.


How many times do I have to go over this? I've already shown the context of both in a previous post.
I guess I missed it. Can you cut and paste it cause I still can't find it.

What I see in your previous posts is "verse 11 is about judgment and verse 16 was quoted in context by Paul". Nowhere do you show or explain the change in context.

Actually, I have to correct something.

Paul, in Romans 9:33, quotes Isa 8:14, not Isa 28:16.

Is 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Is 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I think it can be concluded that it's a combination of both passages. Now which is the context? lol

Peter, in 1 Peter 2:6, refers to Ps 118:22 and quotes Isa 28:16.

These were in context.

Paul makes a statement of stumbling over the stumbling stone, then quotes Isa 8:14 -- in context.

Peter writes of building a spiritual house, and uses Ps 118:22 and Isa 28:16 to illustrate Jesus as the cornerstone.

Neither Romans 9:33 nor 1 Peter 2:6 are about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues.

What are Rom 9:33 and 1 Pet 2:6 talking about? They are speaking of salvation through Jesus Christ. Salvation through Jesus Christ is achieved only through receiving the Spirit of God.

Isaiah 28
Verse 11
Isaiah is speaking of judgement by the Assyrians. It is NOT about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. I understand some have tried twisting it to say that it does, but when looking at the passage, it's not about the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues. It's about the Assyrians bringing judgement.

1 Corinthians 14
Verse 21
Written as a warning against the confusion cause by the whole church speaking in tongues. Yes, it says "thus" or "wherefore" tongues are a sign, but it's not keeping the actual context of Isa 28:11. Paul is writing that tongues are a sign of God speaking to His people. That's it. That's the extent of the comparison.

First off, it says tongues are a sign to unbelievers not of God speaking to his people.
1 Cor 14:20 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul was not warning the Corinthians of judgment from God against them. He was using Is 28 to show the importance of tongues relative to prophecy. Tongues are a sign FROM God to unbelievers. (Fulfilled in Acts 2 btw)

Secondly, you again say Isaiah 28:11 is speaking of judgment (agreed), but you don't show when/how the context changes by verse 16. (*p.s if you already did, please copy and paste it).

I agree that the surface context of that scripture is about judgment. I however, do not see how the topic of judgment is no longer in view by the time we get to verse 16.

At what verse is there a change in context?

Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

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

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.


Again, I'm not denying judgment being spoken of in Is 28. What I'm saying is that beyond the surface context of judgment against Israel as prophesied by Isaiah, Paul uses that same scripture to show new covenant salvation.

[n david]

It throws a bit of kink in the system when you continue reading and find yourself in Isaiah 28:16. It still appears you're changing the context in the middle of an ongoing dialogue.

I'll reflect a little more on what you've said though.
What's the kink? There is no kink.

There is judgement coming through the Assyrians, included in this warning by Isaiah is an allegory of hail sweeping away the refuge, and of waters overwhelming the shelter....but Jesus is the sure foundation, the cornerstone.

Nothing about Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues in that passage.

[n david]

What I see in your previous posts is "verse 11 is about judgment and verse 16 was quoted in context by Paul". Nowhere do you show or explain the change in context.
I apologize, Paul did not quote Isa 28:16. Also, I never meant to suggest Isaiah's writing changes context from verse 11 to verse 16. That was meant for 1 Corinthians 14:21 and Isaiah 28:11.

Is 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Is 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I think it can be concluded that it's a combination of both passages. Now which is the context? lol
I agree that it could be a combination of both 8:14 and 28:16. As far as context, Romans 9 speaks of Gentiles receiving righteousness by faith, but the Jews stumbling because they tried obtaining it by works, instead of faith.

What are Rom 9:33 and 1 Pet 2:6 talking about? They are speaking of salvation through Jesus Christ. Salvation through Jesus Christ is achieved only through receiving the Spirit of God.
So Genesis 2:18 means the whale swallowed Abraham? How do you connect this to Isaiah 28:11?

The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning.

First off, it says tongues are a sign to unbelievers not of God speaking to his people.
1 Cor 14:20 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Actually, the preceding verse 21 does mention tongues as a way of God speaking to His people.

Paul was not warning the Corinthians of judgment from God against them. He was using Is 28 to show the importance of tongues relative to prophecy. Tongues are a sign FROM God to unbelievers. (Fulfilled in Acts 2 btw)
I'm sorry, show me where Isaiah 28:11 is about speaking in tongues or the Holy Ghost? It's not. Paul uses words, but not context when paraphrasing this quote from Isaiah. It's not even an exact quote.

[n david]

Gotta go, may not be back to respond until the morning. :)

[Dordrecht]

How do you receive a gift is the question?
The bible says ask and you receive.
Very simple.

[Pressing-On]

What's the kink? There is no kink.

There is judgement coming through the Assyrians, included in this warning by Isaiah is an allegory of hail sweeping away the refuge, and of waters overwhelming the shelter....but Jesus is the sure foundation, the cornerstone.

Nothing about Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues in that passage.
Apparently, there are other sources that agree it is speaking about tongues. And although we may not view everything written in a commentary as always credible, it does point out that like here at AFF, there is a split on opinion.

Dictionary of Bible Themes:

It was foretold in the OT 1Co 14:21; Isa 28:11

Encyclopedia of the Bible:

When Peter explained this phenomenon to the crowds of Jewish pilgrims gathered at Jerusalem, he did so in terms of the words of Joel (Acts 2:15-21). Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 14:21f., Paul explained the evidential nature of tongues to the unbeliever from Isaiah (Isa 28:11).

This view doesn't mention, Isaiah 28, but seems to get the idea of judgment from the passage:

Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume I, pg. 520:

Outside the church meetings there is a role for tongues, both as a sign of judgment (14:21) and for private devotion (14:18).

[Jason B]

Are you serious?

Yes but to clarify. I'm saying Luke 11:13 contradicts tarrying, seeking, begging, whining, pressin', stressin', fighting, wrestling and even "almost" receiving the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is a gift God wants to give to us and no more withholds His Spirit from us than He withholds the gift of grace.

Who ever had to beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.

Furthermore if Jesus specifically said that God will give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him and we see people who ask for weeks, months, or even years to receive the HG and they do NOT receive, then either Jesus was mistaken or not truthful OR Oneness Pentecostal theology is mistaken. I think it is obviously the latter.

The problem is the initial evidence doctrine which traces back to errant soteriology. Not the baptism of the HG.

[Charnock]

Yes but to clarify. I'm saying Luke 11:13 contradicts tarrying, seeking, begging, whining, pressin', stressin', fighting, wrestling and even "almost" receiving the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is a gift God wants to give to us and no more withholds His Spirit from us than He withholds the gift of grace.

Who ever had to beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.

Furthermore if Jesus specifically said that God will give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him and we see people who ask for weeks, months, or even years to receive the HG and they do NOT receive, then either Jesus was mistaken or not truthful OR Oneness Pentecostal theology is mistaken. I think it is obviously the latter.

The problem is the initial evidence doctrine which traces back to errant soteriology. Not the baptism of the HG.

Jason, you've graduated to the big leagues. This is a first class post that hits at the heart of the matter.

[votivesoul]

Who ever had to beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

But the grace of God can be received in vain, yes? Which comes down to the same thing, i.e. a precious gift received, treated as worthless, and thrown away.

"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (2 Peter 2:21).

Better to have never received the grace of God at all, which through faith leads to the righteousness of the believer, than to have received it in vain, then cast it aside, and become (as the following verse states) a dog returned to its vomit, and etc.

When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.

Are you saying/implying nothing God desires for us can be refused? There is no free will to reject any of His gifts?

Furthermore if Jesus specifically said that God will give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him and we see people who ask for weeks, months, or even years to receive the HG and they do NOT receive, then either Jesus was mistaken or not truthful OR Oneness Pentecostal theology is mistaken. I think it is obviously the latter.

This is too narrow-minded. There are legitimate obstacles to people receiving the Holy Spirit. It doesn't just happen automatically simply for the asking. It can happen automatically (I've seen this happen more than once).

But sin and disobedience, a lack of faith, ignorance of the experience, and others issues, all born out by Scripture, are proof that one cannot always just expect to receive the Holy Spirit because of what Jesus said in Luke 11:13.

- Faith is required (Galatians 3:2 & 14). Asking isn't evidence of faith. Some just don't believe God will impart the gift to them. They feel too unworthy, or try to receive the gift of the Spirit through a rational analysis.

- Obedience is required (Acts 5:32). Any disobedience whatsoever can keep someone from receiving the Holy Spirit. Some of these days, weeks, months, and years people may or may not be in disobedience to God in some way none but the person and God know. God can and does put qualifications on His works and can withhold at anytime when one or more qualification isn't met.

- It must be according to the Scriptures (John 7:37-39). When one is ignorant of the Scriptures, especially in the OT, regarding the new birth of the Holy Spirit, it's no wonder they don't/can't receive It.

People read "free" or "freely" and they think it means nothing of us is required. This isn't the meaning of the word. It mean gratuitous, i.e. liberally shared and given, but only when we fulfill the commandments of God (Consider Acts 17:30, for an example of what kind of qualifications God has placed upon humanity prior to them ever hoping of being saved, i.e. being born above by the Holy Spirit.)

Therefore, it may have nothing at all to do with anyone's "errant soteriology". It may have more to do with unrestrained and not dealt with hamartiology (e.g. unbelief, disobedience, willful ignorance).

[houston]

Jason, you've graduated to the big leagues. This is a first class post that hits at the heart of the matter.what a condescending manner to express agreement

[houston]

But the grace of God can be received in vain, yes? Which comes down to the same thing, i.e. a precious gift received, treated as worthless, and thrown away.

It's NOT the same thing. People are receiving NOTHING according OP doctrine, so they plead and beg God for the gift that He has already given them. They didn't treat the gift as worthless or throw it away.

[votivesoul]

It's NOT the same thing. People are receiving NOTHING according OP doctrine, so they plead and beg God for the gift that He has already given them. They didn't treat the gift as worthless or throw it away.

You didn't understand, which has led to a false assertion/accusation against OP believers.

First,

Jason is making the case that if the grace of God can't be "almost received"; it either is or isn't, and using that as an analogy to the Holy Spirit, as if to say since the grace of God is given to people by God without their ability to not receive it, thus making an "almost received it" an impossibility, it is likewise impossible to almost receive the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is given by God, apparently according to Jason, in like manner, i.e. without their ability to not receive it.

Jason can clarify, of course, if I've mis-represented his case.

Secondly,

Since I've shown that the grace of God can be refused and/or received in vain, the Holy Spirit, if Jason's analogy is accurate, can likewise be refused and/or even received in vain.

And since it would be better for a person to have neither received the grace of God or the Holy Spirit in vain, thus making it possible to reject and/or lose both, it is therefore possible to not receive the Holy Spirit at all (which would be according to 2 Peter 2:21 the lesser of two evils), thus showing that Jason's analogy doesn't work, since he stipulated that no one has to

...beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.

thus implying that even the Holy Spirit, as a gift from God, cannot NOT be received if God is so inclined to give it to us, i.e. we are powerless to refuse it.

Third,

OP believers do not, nor ever have, claimed that people have "...receiv[ed] NOTHING..." simply because someone hasn't spoken in tongues.

Depending on the situation, an OP would be more than willing to say that a person who hasn't spoken in tongues may still have received the following:

-The Truth
-The Gospel
- Revelation
- Repentance
- Remission of Sins
- A Relationship with the Savior
- A Touch from God
- Visions
- Dreams
- Even Salvation (by some, if not for all)
- And Etc.

The only thing an OP will likely say if they know a person has not spoken in tongues is that they haven't received the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Not "NOTHING".

Additionally, to an OP, they would never say or even think that a person would somehow throw or cast away the Gift of the Holy Spirit if that person hadn't yet spoken in tongues. They would know that such a statement or thought was illogical by simply not being possible.

[shazeep]

Just an observation, but it is sad to me how all of this reads as mostly that one must 'hold their mouth right' to receive the Holy Spirit today, which comes from the grace of God.

[n david]

Just an observation, but it is sad to me how all of this reads as mostly that one must 'hold their mouth right' to receive the Holy Spirit today, which comes from the grace of God.
No. It's just that people are more skeptical and/or fearful of spiritual things today. As has been mentioned, God will not force the gift on someone. If someone is praying, but then draws back either because of embarrassment or fear, God will not push or force the HG on them. God has already given the gift. It's now entirely up to the individual to be an open vessel ready and willing to receive it.

[shazeep]

This assumes that someone who has just, or recently accepted Christ might not want, or be fearful of the Holy Spirit?

[shazeep]

If someone is praying, but then draws back either because of embarrassment or fear...I'd like to offer an alt interpretation of this scenario. Could the Holy Spirit possibly be trying to impress upon this person that they are trying to work their way to the Holy Spirit?

[KeptByTheWord]

My 0.02 worth...

People are not receiving the HG because they are seeking the GIFT, and not the GIVER. There is a huge difference. If they are seeking the Lord Jesus, and recognize all the things that will change in their life because of Jesus coming in to take up residence in their lives, receiving the initial evidence of tongues is something they will receive immediately upon that knowledge in their heart.

However, way too often, seeking the GIFT is what is wrong. People want the gift, the blessing, and the "way out of hell" mentality... instead of seeking the GIVER.

PREACH JESUS, and see if revival doesn't break out. Preach the cross, preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Preach taking up your cross to follow Jesus. Preach what the apostles preached in Acts... which was Jesus and the resurrection.... and see if things don't change!

Don't tell/preach about the gift. Tell/preach about the GIVER.

[ILG]

This thread has really helped me to think outside the box on this necessity of tongues thing. Not that I thought someone had to speak in tongues to be saved anyway....but it has really helped me see that in even greater detail.

[n david]

My 0.02 worth...

People are not receiving the HG because they are seeking the GIFT, and not the GIVER. There is a huge difference. If they are seeking the Lord Jesus, and recognize all the things that will change in their life because of Jesus coming in to take up residence in their lives, receiving the initial evidence of tongues is something they will receive immediately upon that knowledge in their heart.

However, way too often, seeking the GIFT is what is wrong. People want the gift, the blessing, and the "way out of hell" mentality... instead of seeking the GIVER.

PREACH JESUS, and see if revival doesn't break out. Preach the cross, preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Preach taking up your cross to follow Jesus. Preach what the apostles preached in Acts... which was Jesus and the resurrection.... and see if things don't change!

Don't tell/preach about the gift. Tell/preach about the GIVER.
I partly agree with you.

I 100% agree there should be more messages and sermons about Jesus, and about the Gospel. I'm sick of these weak message series almost every church is doing now.

So yes, preach more about Jesus. Preach more about the Gospel.

Where I may disagree with you slightly is where you say to seek the giver and not the gift. Now, I like how it sounds, and it's true, we should seek Jesus (the Giver). However, Paul in Acts asks those who were already devout believers, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed."

So while what you say sounds good, and again I don't argue against it; there is precedent, however, where devout men and women, who already sought the Giver, needed to seek the gift.

When I received the Holy Ghost, it wasn't because I wanted to escape Hell. I wanted to be obedient to the word of God. The night I received the Holy Ghost during a revival service, I packed extra clothes to be baptized and purposed that I was going to receive the Holy Ghost that night. That, according to you, was wrong of me to do. I was absolutely seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost. And the wonderful thing is God honored my prayers and filled me that night.

[MissBrattified]

what a condescending manner to express agreement

Yes, apparently Jason was in the minor leagues before that post. :D

You didn't understand, which has led to a false assertion/accusation against OP believers.

First,

Jason is making the case that if the grace of God can't be "almost received"; it either is or isn't, and using that as an analogy to the Holy Spirit, as if to say since the grace of God is given to people by God without their ability to not receive it, thus making an "almost received it" an impossibility, it is likewise impossible to almost receive the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is given by God, apparently according to Jason, in like manner, i.e. without their ability to not receive it.

Jason can clarify, of course, if I've mis-represented his case.

Secondly,

Since I've shown that the grace of God can be refused and/or received in vain, the Holy Spirit, if Jason's analogy is accurate, can likewise be refused and/or even received in vain.

And since it would be better for a person to have neither received the grace of God or the Holy Spirit in vain, thus making it possible to reject and/or lose both, it is therefore possible to not receive the Holy Spirit at all (which would be according to 2 Peter 2:21 the lesser of two evils), thus showing that Jason's analogy doesn't work, since he stipulated that no one has to



thus implying that even the Holy Spirit, as a gift from God, cannot NOT be received if God is so inclined to give it to us, i.e. we are powerless to refuse it.

Third,

OP believers do not, nor ever have, claimed that people have "...receiv[ed] NOTHING..." simply because someone hasn't spoken in tongues.

Depending on the situation, an OP would be more than willing to say that a person who hasn't spoken in tongues may still have received the following:

-The Truth
-The Gospel
- Revelation
- Repentance
- Remission of Sins
- A Relationship with the Savior
- A Touch from God
- Visions
- Dreams
- Even Salvation (by some, if not for all)
- And Etc.

The only thing an OP will likely say if they know a person has not spoken in tongues is that they haven't received the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Not "NOTHING".

Additionally, to an OP, they would never say or even think that a person would somehow throw or cast away the Gift of the Holy Spirit if that person hadn't yet spoken in tongues. They would know that such a statement or thought was illogical by simply not being possible.

I really appreciate logical people. Great post, votivesoul. :thumbsup

...Where I may disagree with you slightly is where you say to seek the giver and not the gift. Now, I like how it sounds, and it's true, we should seek Jesus (the Giver). However, Paul in Acts asks those who were already devout believers, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed."

So while what you say sounds good, and again I don't argue against it; there is precedent, however, where devout men and women, who already sought the Giver, needed to seek the gift.

Good point, David, so maybe a better way to put it would be to say that people are seeking tongues instead of the gift of the Holy Ghost. They are seeking the sign instead of the gift.

[n david]

Good point, David, so maybe a better way to put it would be to say that people are seeking tongues instead of the gift of the Holy Ghost. They are seeking the sign instead of the gift.
Ah, I like that! I can definitely agree with that!

:thumbsup

[KeptByTheWord]

I partly agree with you.

I 100% agree there should be more messages and sermons about Jesus, and about the Gospel. I'm sick of these weak message series almost every church is doing now.

So yes, preach more about Jesus. Preach more about the Gospel.

Where I may disagree with you slightly is where you say to seek the giver and not the gift. Now, I like how it sounds, and it's true, we should seek Jesus (the Giver). However, Paul in Acts asks those who were already devout believers, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed."

So while what you say sounds good, and again I don't argue against it; there is precedent, however, where devout men and women, who already sought the Giver, needed to seek the gift.

When I received the Holy Ghost, it wasn't because I wanted to escape Hell. I wanted to be obedient to the word of God. The night I received the Holy Ghost during a revival service, I packed extra clothes to be baptized and purposed that I was going to receive the Holy Ghost that night. That, according to you, was wrong of me to do. I was absolutely seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost. And the wonderful thing is God honored my prayers and filled me that night.

I think nD that we can agree that you were seeking Jesus first, and because of that, you knew that the gift would come, and it did.... Praise God for that! This is how it should be.

[n david]

I think nD that we can agree that you were seeking Jesus first, and because of that, you knew that the gift would come, and it did.... Praise God for that! This is how it should be.
No, I wasn't seeking Jesus, I was seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost. I told my friends I wouldn't leave the altar until I received it. All I thought as I prayed was that I wanted the Holy Ghost to fill me. I thought I prayed over an hour, though in reality it was about 30 minutes. My arms were tired, and thoughts came in my mind to give up. But I refused to leave until I received the Holy Ghost. And God filled me.

We should desire Jesus above all, but we should also seek to receive the gift. The only thing we should not seek after is the sign (tongues).

[KeptByTheWord]

No, I wasn't seeking Jesus, I was seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost. I told my friends I wouldn't leave the altar until I received it. All I thought as I prayed was that I wanted the Holy Ghost to fill me. I thought I prayed over an hour, though in reality it was about 30 minutes. My arms were tired, and thoughts came in my mind to give up. But I refused to leave until I received the Holy Ghost. And God filled me.

We should desire Jesus above all, but we should also seek to receive the gift. The only thing we should not seek after is the sign (tongues).

:highfive

[Pressing-On]

There is judgement coming through the Assyrians, included in this warning by Isaiah is an allegory of hail sweeping away the refuge, and of waters overwhelming the shelter....but Jesus is the sure foundation, the cornerstone.

Nothing about Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues in that passage.

Actually, this explanation makes more sense.

Tongues Are For Unbelievers

Paul said, "So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers" (I Corinthians 14:22). Does Paul mean to say that tongues are not intended for believers? To answer this question we must examine the immediate context of this verse:

Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking. Instead, be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 It is written in the law: "By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me," says the Lord. 22 So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers (I Corinthians 14:20-22, NET Bible).

First Corinthians 14:21 is a quote from Isaiah 28:11. Paul cited this verse to illustrate the point he was trying to make. It was from the Isaiah passage that Paul concluded tongues are a sign to unbelievers. In order to understand Paul’s statement, then, we must examine the context of Isaiah 28, for Paul drew upon its meaning to derive his own teaching for the church at Corinth.

Israel had broken their covenant with Yahweh, falling into idol worship. The priests were drunkards. God had attempted many times to bring Israel back into a right covenant relationship with Him but they would not heed His call, and were so far spiritually removed from Him that He could not get His message across. In Isaiah 28:2-6 we find Isaiah prophesying that the Assyrian army was going to invade Israel and ravish them. Since the priests and prophets of Israel had become drunkards, they were not spiritually capable of listening to God's voice, and thus were making bad decisions (v. 7). Who could God get His message to if the priests and prophets are not even in right relationship with Him to be able to hear His voice? Can he get communicate it to those who were in a state of spiritual infancy (v.9)? God could only give them small bits and pieces of His will because they were so spiritually immature (v.10).1 Because God could not communicate His message to Israel any other way, He would send those of another tongue (language) to relay the message (v.11). These messengers were none other than the Assyrian army. The message they were to deliver to Israel was none other than that they had broken their covenant with Yahweh. God would make sure they received His message by allowing them to be defeated of another nation. It was through the foreign tongues that God would speak to His people.

In what way would God communicate His message through the Assyrian tongue? The Israelites would be carried captive by the Assyrians to their own land. Every time the Israelites would hear the Assyrians speak in the Assyrian tongue it would remind them that they were defeated and carried away captive because of their failure to love Yahweh and keep His covenant.

God told the Israelites how he had offered them rest and refreshing from their enemies time and time again, yet they would never listen to Him. They kept up their sinfulness. Therefore, God was no longer able to keep them in the state of rest (v.12) Because the Lord could only speak to the Israelites by bits and pieces and couldn't get His whole message across to them, the Israelites would fall backward, be snared, and taken captive by the Assyrians (v.13).

As the prophecy had stated, the Assyrians invaded Israel and destroyed it, taking the Israelites captive. Most Israelites still did not repent, but they most definitely received His message. Instead of repenting they simply grew accustomed to the Assyrians, and even began to marry them and have children by them.

Having now established the meaning of Isaiah 28:11, let us examine Paul’s usage of this text in his letter to the Corinthians.

Notice the parallel of I Corinthians 14:20 to Isaiah 28. Paul told the Corinthians not to be like children, or immature, (like Israel was, who needed line upon line, here a little there a little, precept upon precept), but to be mature. In verse 22, by using the principle of Isaiah 28:11, Paul said, "So also tongues are for a sign for unbelievers today."2 Remember, God told Israel that with men who speak other languages, He would communicate His message to them. Paul, therefore, says that tongues serve a similar purpose today. When an unbeliever hears a believer speaking in tongues, it is a sign to the unbeliever of their rejection of God, and will serve to condemn them on the day of judgment. God will hold them accountable for their unbelief because God expects the sign, and planned for the sign of tongues to convince them and make them believe and be converted, speaking in tongues themselves. Notice that even Jesus connected speaking in tongues with a sign in Mark 16:17.

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers. It is possible to fake a miracle, prophecy, or word of knowledge. One cannot, however, fake speaking in languages they do not naturally know, without it being obvious.

God has given tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost so that unbelievers will believe when they hear believers speaking in tongues. If they do not believe God will use their experience to condemn them in judgment for not believing. Tongues will either excuse or accuse the unbelievers who hear them, at the judgment.

That tongues serve the above purpose does not mean that tongues are not for believers also. Granted, if believers were not to speak in tongues, how could unbelievers ever hear tongues in order to be convinced of their rejection of God? Obviously unbelievers will not be the ones speaking in tongues.. It must be the believers who are speaking in tongues. Also, Jesus’ statement that tongues would follow those who believe would become a contradiction (Mark 16:17). Yet another point to bring out is that immediately following Paul's statement that tongues are for unbelievers, he noted that prophecy is for believers, not unbelievers (v. 22). But then Paul went on to show how prophecy would avail to the conversion of unbelievers (vs. 23-25). If we take Paul's statement that tongues are only for unbelievers to mean that tongues serve no purpose for believers, then we must also consider Paul's blanket statement concerning prophecy in verse 22 to mean that prophecy serves no purpose for unbelievers. The context of verse 22, however, renders both positions untenable. There is a larger context to verse 22 that we must take into consideration in our interpretation.

In the very same chapter that we find Paul making the statement that tongues are for unbelievers, he also makes several statements which clearly indicate that tongues are for believers: tongues and interpretation serve to edify the church (I Corinthians 14:27-28); the individual who speaks in tongues edifies himself (14:4); Paul, a believer, prayed and sang in tongues (14:15); to give thanks in tongues is to give thanks well (14:17); Paul thanked God he spoke in tongues more than the Corinthians (14:18); tongues should not be forbidden among the church (14:39). All these verses describe the tongues of believers. If tongues were not for believers, but only unbelievers, then most of I Corinthians 14 would be in error.

In conclusion, in verse twenty-two Paul is focusing on the fact that the sign of tongues does not serve to convince the believer, but rather the unbeliever. As Jesus noted, however, those who come to believe would then have the sign of tongues following them.

http://onenesspentecostal.com/tonguesunbelievers.htm

[n david]

Actually, this explanation makes more sense.

Tongues Are For Unbelievers

Paul said, "So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers" (I Corinthians 14:22). Does Paul mean to say that tongues are not intended for believers? To answer this question we must examine the immediate context of this verse:

Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking. Instead, be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 It is written in the law: "By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me," says the Lord. 22 So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers (I Corinthians 14:20-22, NET Bible).

First Corinthians 14:21 is a quote from Isaiah 28:11. Paul cited this verse to illustrate the point he was trying to make. It was from the Isaiah passage that Paul concluded tongues are a sign to unbelievers. In order to understand Paul’s statement, then, we must examine the context of Isaiah 28, for Paul drew upon its meaning to derive his own teaching for the church at Corinth.

Israel had broken their covenant with Yahweh, falling into idol worship. The priests were drunkards. God had attempted many times to bring Israel back into a right covenant relationship with Him but they would not heed His call, and were so far spiritually removed from Him that He could not get His message across. In Isaiah 28:2-6 we find Isaiah prophesying that the Assyrian army was going to invade Israel and ravish them. Since the priests and prophets of Israel had become drunkards, they were not spiritually capable of listening to God's voice, and thus were making bad decisions (v. 7). Who could God get His message to if the priests and prophets are not even in right relationship with Him to be able to hear His voice? Can he get communicate it to those who were in a state of spiritual infancy (v.9)? God could only give them small bits and pieces of His will because they were so spiritually immature (v.10).1 Because God could not communicate His message to Israel any other way, He would send those of another tongue (language) to relay the message (v.11). These messengers were none other than the Assyrian army. The message they were to deliver to Israel was none other than that they had broken their covenant with Yahweh. God would make sure they received His message by allowing them to be defeated of another nation. It was through the foreign tongues that God would speak to His people.

In what way would God communicate His message through the Assyrian tongue? The Israelites would be carried captive by the Assyrians to their own land. Every time the Israelites would hear the Assyrians speak in the Assyrian tongue it would remind them that they were defeated and carried away captive because of their failure to love Yahweh and keep His covenant.

God told the Israelites how he had offered them rest and refreshing from their enemies time and time again, yet they would never listen to Him. They kept up their sinfulness. Therefore, God was no longer able to keep them in the state of rest (v.12) Because the Lord could only speak to the Israelites by bits and pieces and couldn't get His whole message across to them, the Israelites would fall backward, be snared, and taken captive by the Assyrians (v.13).

As the prophecy had stated, the Assyrians invaded Israel and destroyed it, taking the Israelites captive. Most Israelites still did not repent, but they most definitely received His message. Instead of repenting they simply grew accustomed to the Assyrians, and even began to marry them and have children by them.

Having now established the meaning of Isaiah 28:11, let us examine Paul’s usage of this text in his letter to the Corinthians.

Notice the parallel of I Corinthians 14:20 to Isaiah 28. Paul told the Corinthians not to be like children, or immature, (like Israel was, who needed line upon line, here a little there a little, precept upon precept), but to be mature. In verse 22, by using the principle of Isaiah 28:11, Paul said, "So also tongues are for a sign for unbelievers today."2 Remember, God told Israel that with men who speak other languages, He would communicate His message to them. Paul, therefore, says that tongues serve a similar purpose today. When an unbeliever hears a believer speaking in tongues, it is a sign to the unbeliever of their rejection of God, and will serve to condemn them on the day of judgment. God will hold them accountable for their unbelief because God expects the sign, and planned for the sign of tongues to convince them and make them believe and be converted, speaking in tongues themselves. Notice that even Jesus connected speaking in tongues with a sign in Mark 16:17.

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers. It is possible to fake a miracle, prophecy, or word of knowledge. One cannot, however, fake speaking in languages they do not naturally know, without it being obvious.

God has given tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost so that unbelievers will believe when they hear believers speaking in tongues. If they do not believe God will use their experience to condemn them in judgment for not believing. Tongues will either excuse or accuse the unbelievers who hear them, at the judgment.

That tongues serve the above purpose does not mean that tongues are not for believers also. Granted, if believers were not to speak in tongues, how could unbelievers ever hear tongues in order to be convinced of their rejection of God? Obviously unbelievers will not be the ones speaking in tongues.. It must be the believers who are speaking in tongues. Also, Jesus’ statement that tongues would follow those who believe would become a contradiction (Mark 16:17). Yet another point to bring out is that immediately following Paul's statement that tongues are for unbelievers, he noted that prophecy is for believers, not unbelievers (v. 22). But then Paul went on to show how prophecy would avail to the conversion of unbelievers (vs. 23-25). If we take Paul's statement that tongues are only for unbelievers to mean that tongues serve no purpose for believers, then we must also consider Paul's blanket statement concerning prophecy in verse 22 to mean that prophecy serves no purpose for unbelievers. The context of verse 22, however, renders both positions untenable. There is a larger context to verse 22 that we must take into consideration in our interpretation.

In the very same chapter that we find Paul making the statement that tongues are for unbelievers, he also makes several statements which clearly indicate that tongues are for believers: tongues and interpretation serve to edify the church (I Corinthians 14:27-28); the individual who speaks in tongues edifies himself (14:4); Paul, a believer, prayed and sang in tongues (14:15); to give thanks in tongues is to give thanks well (14:17); Paul thanked God he spoke in tongues more than the Corinthians (14:18); tongues should not be forbidden among the church (14:39). All these verses describe the tongues of believers. If tongues were not for believers, but only unbelievers, then most of I Corinthians 14 would be in error.

In conclusion, in verse twenty-two Paul is focusing on the fact that the sign of tongues does not serve to convince the believer, but rather the unbeliever. As Jesus noted, however, those who come to believe would then have the sign of tongues following them.

http://onenesspentecostal.com/tonguesunbelievers.htm
All that, and still Isaiah 28:11 is about the Assyrians and not some prophecy about speaking in tongues and the Holy Ghost. :lol If you notice, most of this focused on Paul using the "principle" to address an issue with the church of Corinth. It confirms my statements that Isa 28:11 isn't about talking in tongues and the Holy Ghost. Glad they got it right...even the rest and refreshing part!

:thumbsup

One issue with something written above:

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers. It is possible to fake a miracle, prophecy, or word of knowledge. One cannot, however, fake speaking in languages they do not naturally know, without it being obvious.
It can be faked. Remember the Borat. He and others have faked tongues before. God doesn't use tongues because it "can't be faked;" He uses tongues because as the Bible says, it's the most unruly member of our body.

[TGBTG]

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers.

[God has given tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost so that unbelievers will believe when they hear believers speaking in tongues.

Does this happen today? Anyone witnessed this and got converted due to hearing someone speak by supernatural means a new language?

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not

How are tongues a sign to unbelievers today?

[Praxeas]

I think nD that we can agree that you were seeking Jesus first, and because of that, you knew that the gift would come, and it did.... Praise God for that! This is how it should be.

No, I wasn't seeking Jesus, I was seeking the gift of the Holy Ghost. I told my friends I wouldn't leave the altar until I received it. All I thought as I prayed was that I wanted the Holy Ghost to fill me. I thought I prayed over an hour, though in reality it was about 30 minutes. My arms were tired, and thoughts came in my mind to give up. But I refused to leave until I received the Holy Ghost. And God filled me.

We should desire Jesus above all, but we should also seek to receive the gift. The only thing we should not seek after is the sign (tongues).
I was seeking Jesus FOR the baptism of the Holy Spirit....

[Pressing-On]

All that, and still Isaiah 28:11 is about the Assyrians and not some prophecy about speaking in tongues and the Holy Ghost. :lol If you notice, most of this focused on Paul using the "principal" to address an issue with the church of Corinth. It confirms my statements that Isa 28:11 isn't about talking in tongues and the Holy Ghost. Glad they got it right...even the rest and refreshing part!
If the text didn't include the "cornerstone", I might have held your view.

However, you have to take into account the pharisaic Judaism that Paul defected from and how turning to Jesus Christ, he reassessed the further meaning of the texts. He is explaining, in principle, the new role played by scripture in his new found faith.

He doesn't have to bring out the aspect of "rest" from Isaiah into I Corinthians 14, which you mentioned in another post. If you study Romans he alluded to the Torah on many accounts, knowing those familiar knew what he was referencing without so much as going into great detail on what he was talking about.

It makes more sense, in the context of both passages (Isaiah 28:11 and I Cor 14:21) to say - "Paul, therefore, says that tongues serve a similar purpose today." I can certainly understand the view of "judgment to unbelievers".

One issue with something written above:

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers. It is possible to fake a miracle, prophecy, or word of knowledge. One cannot, however, fake speaking in languages they do not naturally know, without it being obvious.

It can be faked. Remember the Borat. He and others have faked tongues before. God doesn't use tongues because it "can't be faked;" He uses tongues because as the Bible says, it's the most unruly member of our body.
"without being obvious" is his point. I would have stated it as such, "without eventually becoming obvious or known".

On the issue of Borat, it shows where the modern church world is today - including ALL denominations. And, especially that this particular church had a huge wake up call put to them. Perhaps God used Borat to teach that lesson. We are much more carnal. 50 years or more ago, and certainly in the Apostle's day, he would have been ferreted out before he left the building.

Incidentally, you would have to prove that "everyone" in the congregation was duped. I personally have my doubts. I have recognized a few things going amiss before the pastor, on occasion. We ALL have His Spirit and are very well able to discern what is real or not.

I have been in church settings where the person did not pull the wool over our eyes and some who wouldn't have dared to attempt it.

Anyway, I don't agree with your view of Isaiah 28:11. I think you are reading the "surface" and not finding the deeper meaning, as in Isaiah 14, which is a reference to both Lucifer and Nebuchadrezzer.

Isaiah 28:11 can be referring to both judgment with the Chaldean army and prophecy toward the New Covenant. If that were not the case, Paul would have cited Jer 5:15 alone. But he references the cornerstone, Jesus Christ, who is the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, which they were "commanded to tarry until...".

[Pressing-On]

Does this happen today? Anyone witnessed this and got converted due to hearing someone speak by supernatural means a new language?

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not

How are tongues a sign to unbelievers today?
Certainly they are, because the Bible says so.

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

And, yes, I have seen it. I have seen people filled with His Spirit when the church was operating in the gifts. I received the Holy Ghost at Camp Meeting in this very setting.

[Pressing-On]

I was seeking Jesus FOR the baptism of the Holy Spirit....

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Certainly, because we knew He was the Giver of the Gift.

[Abiding Now]

I distinctly remember praying "Jesus, I want the Holy Ghost" and standing between the pews, I began to speak in tongues annnnnnnnnd there was no one around me screaming in my ear. :D

[Pressing-On]

I distinctly remember praying "Jesus, I want the Holy Ghost" and standing between the pews, I began to speak in tongues annnnnnnnnd there was no one around me screaming in my ear. :D

My husband had the same experience. Went back, sat in his pew, a few minutes later, no one praying with him, began to speak in tongues for 2 hours.

[Abiding Now]

My husband had the same experience. Went back, sat in his pew, a few minutes later, no one praying with him, began to speak in tongues for 2 hours.

Wonderful! Gonna be real hard for the naysayers to convince him that he didn't receive the Holy Ghost. :happydance

[Pressing-On]

Wonderful! Gonna be real hard for the naysayers to convince him that he didn't receive the Holy Ghost. :happydance

Exactly! :thumbsup

And, BTW, he being raised COG, knew the "added blessing" was not correct doctrine.

[Praxeas]

I distinctly remember praying "Jesus, I want the Holy Ghost" and standing between the pews, I began to speak in tongues annnnnnnnnd there was no one around me screaming in my ear. :D
If a person in a church building receives the Spirit and no one is around to hear it, does he or she make a sound?

[Pressing-On]

If a person in a church building receives the Spirit and no one is around to hear it, does he or she make a sound?

Stop changing the joke. :heeheehee

[Abiding Now]

If a person in a church building receives the Spirit and no one is around to hear it, does he or she make a sound?

That person will have to go to altar Sunday night so the "listeners" (you've seen them putting their ear up to a seekers mouth so THEY can hear and then nod to the rest of the folks :heeheehee) can verify that they really received the Holy Ghost.


TIC

[Praxeas]

That person will have to go to altar Sunday night so the "listeners" (you've seen them putting their ear up to a seekers mouth so THEY can hear and then nod to the rest of the folks :heeheehee) can verify that they really received the Holy Ghost.


TIC
And then ask them "do you believe you were speaking in another language?" and when they say "no" or "I don't know", promptly say "Nope! Ya didn't get it"

[Sasha]

Luke 11:13

Oh wait, never mind......let's not cloud the issue with scripture.

That scripture had nothing to do with my question.

[Sasha]

Where in the Bible?

Acts 26:28

[Sasha]

Obviously, we have no accord regarding pneumatology. That's pretty standard around here, from what I've seen and read.

So I will only say this: people, including children, have free wills. They can reach for God with all their heart, soul, and strength, and just as they are about to receive a touch from God, turn away, step back, and reject what was about to happen. It happens all the time, not just with receiving the Holy Spirit or speaking in tongues.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift given out of mercy by a loving Savior. It is never forced on anyone, ever. God doesn't operate like that. He is more than willing to give, and give, and keep giving, as long as faith in Him is present. People can reach out to receive, and receive, and receive, but draw away at the last moment.

This is obvious in all aspects of life. I can almost type ____, and change my mind last second, and not type it. I can almost say ____, and not say it, saying something else instead. I can reach out to receive a gift from someone at Christmas time or on my birthday, and pull back last minute, deciding I don't want it, letting it fall to the floor. I can almost take a bite out of a piece of food, and stop short when someone yells "Stop, the dog was on the table licking that before you came into the room"!

I can almost receive the Gospel and at the last minute, decide against giving my life to the Lord. I can think about repenting, and be on the verge of confessing my sins to God, and then hold up, and not do so. I can be this close to getting into the water and being baptized, and change my mind.

Just as a man or a woman can literally run from the altar a second after they've been asked to say "I do", and so, not marry, so, too can a person, even a child, for whatever reason, run from the Holy Spirit a second after God first moves on them in order to baptize them.

Did that person almost get married? Yes, almost, but not quite. Did that person almost receive the Holy Spirit, but didn't? Yes, almost. But not quite.

Did that person almost speak in tongues? Yes, but clamped up and refused to do so, for whatever reason, moments before they would have otherwise spoken in tongues. In that clamping up, since the Spirit is compared to living/running waters flowing out of one's side, it should be no surprise that when a person resists speaking in tongues, but still doesn't want to let go of the Spirit, either, that an impasse will occur at the point of entry, i.e. the mouth. This causes people to, for lack of a better word, stammer.

Should stammer be connected back to Isaiah 28:11-12? Someone else can argue over that. But stammering, shaking, quivering, or whatever word/synonym one wants to use, is still something that happens, especially to kids. Is it in the Bible? No, but there is also no Bible that states a child ever received the Holy Spirit, and yet children all over the world receive the Holy Spirit constantly (while it is promised to children a la Acts 2:39, we read no actual account of it occurring, but know it must have and still does). So, looking in the Word for something and not finding it printed exactly as you want doesn't mean it's not legitimate or not from God.

VS, while I agree what you are saying, you are on a different rabbit trail. For years I've seen people 'seek' the HG and struggle so hard to receive it, often times giving up because those tongues just never come. That's not someone making a choice or changing their mind as you describe above. They are reaching out for a gift that appears to be dangling just out of reach when a promise is given.

[Sasha]

Yes but to clarify. I'm saying Luke 11:13 contradicts tarrying, seeking, begging, whining, pressin', stressin', fighting, wrestling and even "almost" receiving the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is a gift God wants to give to us and no more withholds His Spirit from us than He withholds the gift of grace.

Who ever had to beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.

Furthermore if Jesus specifically said that God will give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him and we see people who ask for weeks, months, or even years to receive the HG and they do NOT receive, then either Jesus was mistaken or not truthful OR Oneness Pentecostal theology is mistaken. I think it is obviously the latter.

The problem is the initial evidence doctrine which traces back to errant soteriology. Not the baptism of the HG.

Ok, now I got it. I thought you were using that verse to answer me when it didn't. Thanks.

[votivesoul]

Does this happen today? Anyone witnessed this and got converted due to hearing someone speak by supernatural means a new language?

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not

How are tongues a sign to unbelievers today?

Me!

Short version:

My best friend for close to the 10 years we grew up together was a heathen sinner just like me. He was saved and invited me to his church. I attended, bad attitude and all.

During altar call, as he prayed, he began to speak in tongues. I listened intently. Having studied multiple foreign languages for several years at that point, I came to realize a few things:

1.) He was speaking a genuine language, even though I didn't know what it was.
2.) He was not merely repeating a few phrases over and over again as some kind of chanting mantra. It was a continual flow of new words.
3.) I knew my friend had never learned a new language in his life. He only spoke English, so what he was doing should have been impossible.
4.) My best friend wouldn't do something like this as a fake or put on, to mess with me. He was being sincere in his experience.

When I reasoned out the four things above, I came to this conclusion:

5.) God is real.

I wasn't born again for a couple more years, however. But I was converted from antagonistic atheism to willing believer in the existence of God.

This all happened in about 10 minutes, by the way.

[votivesoul]

That person will have to go to altar Sunday night so the "listeners" (you've seen them putting their ear up to a seekers mouth so THEY can hear and then nod to the rest of the folks :heeheehee) can verify that they really received the Holy Ghost.


TIC

You know, if we didn't have 120 decibel songs blaring during altar call, people would receive the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues, and the entire assembly would likely hear and know, and be blessed. Instead, because almost no one can hear anything, we stick our ears down people's throats trying to distinguish English from tongues while

CAN"T STOP PRAISIN' HIS NAME drowns out everything else.

Man, I hate this...

[votivesoul]

VS, while I agree what you are saying, you are on a different rabbit trail. For years I've seen people 'seek' the HG and struggle so hard to receive it, often times giving up because those tongues just never come. That's not someone making a choice or changing their mind as you describe above. They are reaching out for a gift that appears to be dangling just out of reach when a promise is given.

I have seen this, too, and it is hard to see, and I imagine even harder for the person involved.

As I see it, either one of two things is occurring:

1.) Tongues is not the initial evidence for at least ALL people when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and so, them expecting to speak in tongues is an incorrect expectation.

2.) God knows the heart and there really is a legitimate obstacle to them receiving the promised Spirit. Reasons may include unbelief, hidden sin, ignorance of the experience, indoctrination into false beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit or person of Christ, and even demonic possession (I've seen a few people who couldn't receive the Holy Spirit until they were delivered of the evil spirit or spirits that had possessed them).

Maybe someone else can come up with a 3rd possibility, but these two seem the most obvious.

The question then becomes: which one do we embrace?

Each will be fully persuaded in their own minds, hence my comment regarding diverging pneumatology.

In the end, we're all accountable to God for what we believe and teach. May the terror of the Lord persuade us to not be wrong!

[Jason B]

Yes but to clarify. I'm saying Luke 11:13 contradicts tarrying, seeking, begging, whining, pressin', stressin', fighting, wrestling and even "almost" receiving the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is a gift God wants to give to us and no more withholds His Spirit from us than He withholds the gift of grace.

Who ever had to beg, seek, tarry, or almost receive the grace of God?

No one. Ever.

But the grace of God can be received in vain, yes? Which comes down to the same thing, i.e. a precious gift received, treated as worthless, and thrown away.

"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (2 Peter 2:21).

Better to have never received the grace of God at all, which through faith leads to the righteousness of the believer, than to have received it in vain, then cast it aside, and become (as the following verse states) a dog returned to its vomit, and etc.
Votive, that is a different argument. We are not talking about receiving then rejecting a gift of God. The issue is initial reception of a gift of God. And the initial reception of grace is quite easy. Can it be rejected at a future time through disobedience, disbelief, and unrepentance, hence "received in vain", I would affirm so. (OSAS believers would probably deny). However that doesn't change the fact that the initial reception of God's free gift of grace is quite simple and has nothing to do with us outside of the basic "repent ye and believe the gospel."



When God desires to give us a gift we there's nothing we can do to keep Him from giving it to us.



Are you saying/implying nothing God desires for us can be refused? There is no free will to reject any of His gifts?
No. But we're not talking about refusing anything from God, we are talking about the opposite, ASKING God for something by faith.



Furthermore if Jesus specifically said that God will give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him and we see people who ask for weeks, months, or even years to receive the HG and they do NOT receive, then either Jesus was mistaken or not truthful OR Oneness Pentecostal theology is mistaken. I think it is obviously the latter.

This is too narrow-minded. There are legitimate obstacles to people receiving the Holy Spirit. It doesn't just happen automatically simply for the asking. It can happen automatically (I've seen this happen more than once).

The only thing that keep anyone from receiving the Holy Ghost is unbelief. Not unbelief in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but unbelief of the gospel. For to believe the gospel is to repent (Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, etc). If someone truly believes the gospel, their eyes are opened to their sin and their need for Christ, they therefore place their trust in Christ, at which point God justifies them by faith (Romans 3:21-5:2). People who have been justified go from being condemned as God's enemies, children of disobedience, subject to His wrath to being counted as justified/righteous in God's sight based on the work of Christ, no longer at enmity, but now at peace with God. No longer enemies, but now children of God. Because when they were justified by faith they are regenerated/born again (John 3) because God has not only imputed Christ's righteousness to them, but puts His Spirit within them, thus making them children of God via adoption (Romans 8:15-17, John 1:12, Ephesians 1:13-14). Hence I would suggest it actually does happen "automatically' when someone truly expresses genuine saving faith. (Not to be confused with mental assent).

But sin and disobedience, a lack of faith, ignorance of the experience, and others issues, all born out by Scripture, are proof that one cannot always just expect to receive the Holy Spirit because of what Jesus said in Luke 11:13.

Not necessarily. If unbelief and repentance persists, then yes, that will keep someone from receiving the Spirit of God, as it will keep them from being saved. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are two ways of saying the same thing. But I would argue that everyone who has received the Spirit had some sin, disobedience, and lack of faith, yet still received the Spirit. Are you willing to affirm only those who are sinless, completely obedient, and full of perfect faith with no doubting, and made wise of the experience, the only ones who can receive the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So then your reasons are basically self refuting.

- Faith is required (Galatians 3:2 & 14). Asking isn't evidence of faith. Some just don't believe God will impart the gift to them. They feel too unworthy, or try to receive the gift of the Spirit through a rational analysis.

True faith is required. I've affirmed that. But I don't buy that we keep God from giving us the Holy Ghost because we feel unworthy. I'd rather say that anyone who feels themselves worthy to be the bigger problem, in my human opinion. I think this business saying "oh they didn't receive the HG because they couldn't understand it/tried to rationalize it/ was worried about how it'd sound/etc" is bunk. Just an excuse moving the focus off the problem (an errant soteriology, and moving it to the person). They didn't speak in tongues-therefore THEY are the problem, not our initial evidence doctrine.

- Obedience is required (Acts 5:32). Any disobedience whatsoever can keep someone from receiving the Holy Spirit. Some of these days, weeks, months, and years people may or may not be in disobedience to God in some way none but the person and God know. God can and does put qualifications on His works and can withhold at anytime when one or more qualification isn't met.

Generally speaking, yes I agree obedience is required. But I'd argue for a general obedience. Namely believing the gospel of Christ/repenting of sin. If perfect obedience is required then 1)who is able to meet that standard 2)how is that NOT salvation by works 3)why is the cross necessary if we can perfectly obey God, thus merit anything 4)We receive the Holy Ghost based on what Christ did for us, not based on what we do.



- It must be according to the Scriptures (John 7:37-39). When one is ignorant of the Scriptures, especially in the OT, regarding the new birth of the Holy Spirit, it's no wonder they don't/can't receive It.
I question your use of all these scriptures (Galatians 3:2,14 Acts 5:32, John 7:37-39). Do you think this scripture is saying unless you understand doctrine of the Holy Ghost you can't receive it? Who had to be talked into receiving the Spirit in the NT? I would argue EVERY ONE who received the Spirit, especially with the sign of speaking in tongues WAS IGNORANT of it. They weren't seeking that manifestation. Certainly not the apostles in Acts 2, certainly not the Samaritans in Acts 8, Cornelius in Acts 10, or the Ephesians in Acts 19.


In reference to John 7:37-39, I would argue that the central thought is believing on Jesus Christ, and that belief in Jesus Christ is the requirement for reception of the gift. Not, as OPs interpret this passage, that a proper understanding of the gift "according to the scriptures" is required. In v.38 Jesus is obviously making Himself the object of belief, not doctrinal understanding. And as such, that is quite consistent with John's whole reason for writing-that we might believe in Jesus Christ.

People read "free" or "freely" and they think it means nothing of us is required. This isn't the meaning of the word. It mean gratuitous, i.e. liberally shared and given, but only when we fulfill the commandments of God (Consider Acts 17:30, for an example of what kind of qualifications God has placed upon humanity prior to them ever hoping of being saved, i.e. being born above by the Holy Spirit.)
A classic strawman. No one has suggested nothing is required of us, the Bible tells us what is required-faith in Jesus Christ/repentance from sin. Nothing else. The scripture you quoted simply shows the necessity of repentance, which premise no one is arguing against. None of the scripture you are posting makes the case for the initial evidence doctrine, for seeking, tarrying, or "almost receiving the Holy Ghost."

Therefore, it may have nothing at all to do with anyone's "errant soteriology". It may have more to do with unrestrained and not dealt with hamartiology (e.g. unbelief, disobedience, willful ignorance).
Your vocabulary is impressive, but I think you've got some holes in your doctrine. Again your responding to something no one has said. I'm in agreement with you. This conversation isn't even about the unbelieving, obviously they don't receive the Spirit.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by votivesoul
Therefore, it may have nothing at all to do with anyone's "errant soteriology". It may have more to do with unrestrained and not dealt with hamartiology (e.g. unbelief, disobedience, willful ignorance).

Good grief....how many "ologies" are there?

[Jason B]

I have seen this, too, and it is hard to see, and I imagine even harder for the person involved.
That's an understatement. It can be crushing to the person involved, depending on how convinced they are that tongues=salvation (simply stated). The "seeker" is then made to feel that 1)there is something wrong with them so reason God won't give them this "gift" 2)that perhaps God doesn't love them and 3)that God refuses to save them.

People struggle with those thoughts, sadly this doctrine hasn't just left people discouraged, its left souls littered along the side of the road. It's caused people to turn their back on God. To teach that people can't be saved if they haven't spoken in tongues, then see them beg and weep in anguish to receive the gift, altar call after altar call, only to eventually get discouraged and give up, is one of the saddest things of all. I wish/hope/pray someone can share the love of our Savior with them.


As I see it, either one of two things is occurring:

1.) Tongues is not the initial evidence for at least ALL people when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and so, them expecting to speak in tongues is an incorrect expectation.
Wait. What? Exactly. If you really believe this, then do you not conclude that in fact people can be saved without speaking in tongues?

2.) God knows the heart and there really is a legitimate obstacle to them receiving the promised Spirit. Reasons may include unbelief, hidden sin, ignorance of the experience, indoctrination into false beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit or person of Christ, and even demonic possession (I've seen a few people who couldn't receive the Holy Spirit until they were delivered of the evil spirit or spirits that had possessed them).
Yes. God knows the heart, and it can be true that we think someone is sincere when they are not. I mostly agree with these two conclusions, neither of which requires the initial evidence doctrine.


In the end, we're all accountable to God for what we believe and teach.

Amen. And that is a sobering thought for all of us.

May the terror of the Lord persuade us to not be wrong!
I'll admit to not wanting to be wrong. But I'll also admit to being pretty sure I am wrong somewhere regarding doctrine. If we've got to worry about being wrong on some doctrine, then we've got every right to tremble in the terror of the Lord. But that's not the gospel.

The gospel is salvation based on a simple faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Its not belief plus our intellect. Its not belief plus seminary level understanding of systematic theology. Its believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Which is why I affirm the salvation of oneness Pentecostals, even though I believe they/we are wrong about the initial evidence doctrine (and standards). And its why I believe Trinitarians can be saved (as well as oneness). We're not saved by belief in Jesus Christ, plus proper Christology. Belief in Jesus Christ plus the right dress code. Belief in Christ plus the right baptismal formula. Belief in Christ plus paying tithes.

I want to be doctrinally accurate. I want to speak, preach, and teach the truth of God's Word. But I'm not fretting over every doctrine. I believe that God's grace and mercy is greater than my theological ignorance.

[votivesoul]

Good grief....how many "ologies" are there?

Dozens, if we try hard enough. :)

[votivesoul]

Hi, Jason

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I want to comment on a few things, and answer some of your direct questions (This is likely becoming academic at this point, but once more into the breach...)

Votive, that is a different argument...

I agree; they are two different things, i.e. grace and the Holy Spirit. I made those comments because of the implied analogy you made between how easy it is for a person to receive the grace of God vis a vis receiving the Holy Spirit. It seemed you were trying to make the case that receiving the grace of God and receiving the Holy Spirit were near identical in ease and experience (as a counter to people "tarrying, begging, and etc" for the Holy Spirit).

If that wasn't your intention, and no analogies were implied, then most my post in question is largely irrelevant to your initial comments.

No. But we're not talking about refusing anything from God, we are talking about the opposite, ASKING God for something by faith.

But you said in effect, when God wants to give us a gift we can't do anything from stopping Him.

Now, if you mean we can't stop His wanting to, that is one thing I agree with. But it seemed to indicate God is going to give and have His way, no matter what, even it if violates the will.

But, if you didn't mean the latter, only the former, then the matter is settled peacefully.

The only thing that keep anyone from receiving the Holy Ghost is unbelief.

I agree, but elaborated to try and show what unbelief is and means. Unbelief is a sin operating out of an evil heart (Hebrews 3:12). As defined by the Greek word apistia it can refer to rebellious disobedience against Christ. Such disobedience is a definite obstacle to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Now, we may say "But the person has received and believed the Gospel, they confessed their sins, and asked for forgiveness. No way they are harboring unbelief and/or secret sin"!

We can't know that with certainty. Vocal confessions of faith in Christ and the Gospel are nearly useless. God knows the heart, no matter what is said. He will search them and try them. Many want to be saved, but secretly refuse to separate themselves from the very thing God wants to save them from: a sinful, even damning life enslaved to the old man.

Such a person, even if they confess all the right things, if they don't let go, or aren't at least willing, relying on God's help to help them, are never going to receive the Holy Spirit.

If someone truly believes the gospel, their eyes are opened to their sin and their need for Christ, they therefore place their trust in Christ...

Not always. We can't presume this. I read an account of a preacher whose dad came to him and said, "Son, I know I'm lost and bound for hell". He did nothing about it and died lost (from a sermon called "The Worst Word in the World is Lost", by Verbal Bean).

So it may be that one places their trust in Christ. It may also be that with the opening of their eyes and the conviction of the truth, they run like mad for the nearest exit.

People who have been justified go from being condemned as God's enemies, children of disobedience, subject to His wrath to being counted as justified/righteous in God's sight based on the work of Christ, no longer at enmity, but now at peace with God. No longer enemies, but now children of God. Because when they were justified by faith they are regenerated/born again (John 3) because God has not only imputed Christ's righteousness to them, but puts His Spirit within them, thus making them children of God via adoption (Romans 8:15-17, John 1:12, Ephesians 1:13-14).

Well done! I agree wholeheartedly. An astute, yet concise summary of the doctrine of justification.

Hence I would suggest it actually does happen "automatically' when someone truly expresses genuine saving faith. (Not to be confused with mental assent).

Indeed, it does. But the loggerhead is the definition of "saving faith". I appreciate the comment that it DOES NOT mean mental assent.

But since I assume we are working with different definitions of faith, all of those verses that speak of faith justifying a sinner are going to mean different things to us.

(But since this would lead into a massive discussion about what saving faith means, I will leave that for a different occasion.)

But I would argue that everyone who has received the Spirit had some sin, disobedience, and lack of faith, yet still received the Spirit. Are you willing to affirm only those who are sinless, completely obedient, and full of perfect faith with no doubting, and made wise of the experience, the only ones who can receive the Holy Spirit?

It has been my experience that every seeker who has turned away from sin and the disobedience to God sin causes, who asks for the Holy Spirit in faith, and had an understanding of the experience explained to them from the Scriptures prior to seeking the Holy Spirit, receives the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues immediately, from children, to teens, to adults, i.e. everyone.

The only ones I've seen struggle are the ones who haven't yielded in some area of the above.

But I admit my experience is limited compared to the church world at large.

But I don't buy that we keep God from giving us the Holy Ghost because we feel unworthy.

Feelings of unworthiness, which often (not always) are born out of self-pity, are signals of condemnation. Condemnation is indicative of carnality (Romans 8:1) and of even loving darkness rather than light (John 3:17-19).

Such feelings often frustrate the grace of God operating in the life of the believer when he or she is seeking the gift of the Holy Spirit, because it nullifies their ability to believe that God is able to save them.

Generally speaking, yes I agree obedience is required. But I'd argue for a general obedience. Namely believing the gospel of Christ/repenting of sin. If perfect obedience is required then 1)who is able to meet that standard 2)how is that NOT salvation by works 3)why is the cross necessary if we can perfectly obey God, thus merit anything 4)We receive the Holy Ghost based on what Christ did for us, not based on what we do.

This is true. But sometimes a specific obedience is also required. God will often deal with a person about a specific hindrance, usually a particular work of the flesh, that is still separating them from Him (and them from receiving His Spirit).

I question your use of all these scriptures (Galatians 3:2,14 Acts 5:32, John 7:37-39). Do you think this scripture is saying unless you understand doctrine of the Holy Ghost you can't receive it?

It's not often the case. But look at the believers in Acts 19:1-6. Until their understanding was opened, they didn't even know there was a Holy Spirit to be received.

In reference to John 7:37-39...

I agree that "as the Scriptures hath said" is a referral to Jesus as the object. But I don't exclude "as the Scriptures hath said" from also being about the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here's why: Christ, as the main object of the OT Scriptures, is the Anointed One through whom the Father gives the gift. Additionally, the gift is the Spirit of Christ, and so, when Christ becomes the obvious object of John 7:37-39, the Spirit of Christ, by default, also has to be included in the understanding.

We are given the Spirit of God's Son, n'est pas (Galatians 4:6)? So to receive said Spirit means the person of Christ is received, thus making what the Lord said in John 7:37-39 just as much about the Holy Spirit being received according to the Scriptures, as it does about Jesus being the object of faith that must be believed according to the Scriptures.

A classic strawman...

I admit to hesitating before I typed all that, since it wasn't in regards to anything anyone on this post had written. I shared it more as a non sequiter to a general point, often embraced by Evangelicals, when this type of discussion is raised.

So it can be withdrawn.

Again your responding to something no one has said.

Perhaps it's maddening, but sometimes I post things related to the topic, but not in anyone's direction. Some of the things I post are not meant to be understood as a reply to anyone in particular. They are of my own musings, and are shared for the general consumption of anyone that cares to read.

[Praxeas]

Including, but not limited to, Proctology, Oology, Pomology

Here is a list of ologies

http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/ologies.htm

[votivesoul]

That's an understatement.

I am sure it is understated. I will not denigrate anyone's personal experience, as you, Jason, or others may have dealt with this, whether much or little.

But it has been my experience, limited as it is, that everyone who wants the gift of the Holy Spirit and seeks it according to the Biblically prescribed methods (e.g. faith in Christ, repentance, and etc.) receives it.

Every single member in my church has received the gift of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, except for one man. This one man confessed to me, however, that he is still harboring a resentment against his mother for past abuses in his childhood.

So, shall we assume that for this man, speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, and so, that's why he never has (even though he said he came very close one time, but then stopped short, since it scared him), or should we assume that the un-forgiveness in his heart, as a sin, is still separating him from the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Should we then assume that because of this one man, tongues as initial evidence is errant soteriology?

Now, take this one instance and expand it to the Christian/Pentecostal world at large, with the point being that perhaps, just perhaps, maybe some haven't received the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues for a similar, albeit un-confessed, reason?

We cannot know or be sure, no matter how much we want or presume to be.

And with such a gray area, I refuse to be overly dogmatic in either direction, though I lean, because of my experience, toward saying the issue really is the person, and not the doctrine.

But, I'm not omniscient, so I don't pretend to know for all circumstances and people.

People struggle with those thoughts, sadly this doctrine hasn't just left people discouraged, its left souls littered along the side of the road. It's caused people to turn their back on God. To teach that people can't be saved if they haven't spoken in tongues, then see them beg and weep in anguish to receive the gift, altar call after altar call, only to eventually get discouraged and give up, is one of the saddest things of all. I wish/hope/pray someone can share the love of our Savior with them.

My mom told me about a lady who she knows who had waited nearly 50 years, from the time of her confession of faith and immersion in the name of the Lord, until she received the Holy Spirit. But she eventually did, and when she did, she spoke in tongues.

It's outrageous! But this lady knew she hadn't received the Holy Spirit until she spoke in tongues.

We can argue if she is deceived or not. But what we cannot argue over is whether or not it's God's fault. It's not.

We can argue over whether she was already saved of not. But what we cannot argue over is whether or not Romans 8:9 is true. It is.

After that, what more can we say? I refuse to use God's Holy Word as bricks to beat people's spirits in, as though I was metaphorically beating their brains in, simply because they disagree with me. God's Word is more precious than that. It's sharper than any two-edged sword, and it divides asunder, no doubt about it. But it's not a hacking weapon designed to put people in early spiritual graves, so I don't argue disagreements too often, because none are blessed or edified by such a bloody mess.

Wait. What? Exactly. If you really believe this, then do you not conclude that in fact people can be saved without speaking in tongues?

I conclude that I am not the Judge or Savior of anyone's soul. Anyone that God permits to enter heaven, even if they never spoke in tongues, is my brother or sister. Anyone He refuses entrance, whether they ever spoke in tongues or not, is not my brother or sister.

I am a worm, and not a man. It's not my place to act as the Lord.

But I will say this: I believe that the normative, uniform experience that everyone who wants to receive the Holy Spirit should expect, is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. I find that to be the conclusive Biblical doctrine.

I also believe that receiving the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to the salvation of any soul.

Now, I realize then that if taken together, it would seem I must conclude that a person has to speak in tongues in order to be saved.

But there is a gap in such an otherwise tidy syllogism, and it is two-fold.

1.) I may ALWAYS be wrong (since I sometimes am)
2.) There is just enough gray area in the Bible to leave the matter unsettled in my mind (examples include Gentiles who are a law unto themselves from Romans 2 and those who are judged by the books according to their deeds from Revelation 20).

It's a longer version that this summary, so if anyone wants to PM me, please do so and I will give the full account of how I came to this position.

...neither of which requires the initial evidence doctrine....

But it doesn't preclude it, either. :)

...I'll also admit to being pretty sure I am wrong somewhere regarding doctrine.

Me, too.

...I'm not fretting over every doctrine.

Nor I.

And yet, in one area, if in no other, it is the presentation of the Gospel and how a soul is saved, that we have no margin for error.

I can be wrong about many things, and I know the grace of God is with me to forgive, if I stay humble enough to admit my limitations and faults regarding all aspects of God's Word.

But since the Gospel is the litmus test between heaven and hell, if I am wrong in any way, shape, or form, in what I believe and teach, in regards to either the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord, or in how to apply those things through faith to the saving of the soul, then I have every right to expect to be anathematized in the eyes of the Lord for believing and teaching another Jesus and another Gospel.

And that is worthy of my most severe dread.

[Jason B]

Votive I appreciate the spirit with which you dialogue. :)

[shazeep]

me too! a couple of points:
'"I know I'm lost and bound for hell". He did nothing about it and died lost...'
can we really know this? i'm getting reflections of...Isaiah's, was it? statements to the angel about where he thought he was going to end up (during one of his fasts). i think the preacher's statement must be given the same weight as "Vocal confessions of faith in Christ and the Gospel are nearly useless," which i agree with.

"with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues"
where is this in Scripture?

and one more; isn't speaking in tongues considered a gift? One of several, divided among the bretheren? then how does it become a requirement, except by the addition of "with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues?"

y'all pardon me if this has been addressed, and i missed it, ty.

[Pressing-On]

I am sure it is understated. I will not denigrate anyone's personal experience, as you, Jason, or others may have dealt with this, whether much or little.

But it has been my experience, limited as it is, that everyone who wants the gift of the Holy Spirit and seeks it according to the Biblically prescribed methods (e.g. faith in Christ, repentance, and etc.) receives it.

Every single member in my church has received the gift of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, except for one man. This one man confessed to me, however, that he is still harboring a resentment against his mother for past abuses in his childhood.

So, shall we assume that for this man, speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, and so, that's why he never has (even though he said he came very close one time, but then stopped short, since it scared him), or should we assume that the un-forgiveness in his heart, as a sin, is still separating him from the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Should we then assume that because of this one man, tongues as initial evidence is errant soteriology?

Now, take this one instance and expand it to the Christian/Pentecostal world at large, with the point being that perhaps, just perhaps, maybe some haven't received the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues for a similar, albeit un-confessed, reason?

We cannot know or be sure, no matter how much we want or presume to be.

And with such a gray area, I refuse to be overly dogmatic in either direction, though I lean, because of my experience, toward saying the issue really is the person, and not the doctrine.

But, I'm not omniscient, so I don't pretend to know for all circumstances and people.



My mom told me about a lady who she knows who had waited nearly 50 years, from the time of her confession of faith and immersion in the name of the Lord, until she received the Holy Spirit. But she eventually did, and when she did, she spoke in tongues.

It's outrageous! But this lady knew she hadn't received the Holy Spirit until she spoke in tongues.

We can argue if she is deceived or not. But what we cannot argue over is whether or not it's God's fault. It's not.

We can argue over whether she was already saved of not. But what we cannot argue over is whether or not Romans 8:9 is true. It is.

After that, what more can we say? I refuse to use God's Holy Word as bricks to beat people's spirits in, as though I was metaphorically beating their brains in, simply because they disagree with me. God's Word is more precious than that. It's sharper than any two-edged sword, and it divides asunder, no doubt about it. But it's not a hacking weapon designed to put people in early spiritual graves, so I don't argue disagreements too often, because none are blessed or edified by such a bloody mess.



I conclude that I am not the Judge or Savior of anyone's soul. Anyone that God permits to enter heaven, even if they never spoke in tongues, is my brother or sister. Anyone He refuses entrance, whether they ever spoke in tongues or not, is not my brother or sister.

I am a worm, and not a man. It's not my place to act as the Lord.

But I will say this: I believe that the normative, uniform experience that everyone who wants to receive the Holy Spirit should expect, is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. I find that to be the conclusive Biblical doctrine.

I also believe that receiving the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to the salvation of any soul.

Now, I realize then that if taken together, it would seem I must conclude that a person has to speak in tongues in order to be saved.

But there is a gap in such an otherwise tidy syllogism, and it is two-fold.

1.) I may ALWAYS be wrong (since I sometimes am)
2.) There is just enough gray area in the Bible to leave the matter unsettled in my mind (examples include Gentiles who are a law unto themselves from Romans 2 and those who are judged by the books according to their deeds from Revelation 20).

It's a longer version that this summary, so if anyone wants to PM me, please do so and I will give the full account of how I came to this position.



But it doesn't preclude it, either. :)



Me, too.



Nor I.

And yet, in one area, if in no other, it is the presentation of the Gospel and how a soul is saved, that we have no margin for error.

I can be wrong about many things, and I know the grace of God is with me to forgive, if I stay humble enough to admit my limitations and faults regarding all aspects of God's Word.

But since the Gospel is the litmus test between heaven and hell, if I am wrong in any way, shape, or form, in what I believe and teach, in regards to either the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord, or in how to apply those things through faith to the saving of the soul, then I have every right to expect to be anathematized in the eyes of the Lord for believing and teaching another Jesus and another Gospel.

And that is worthy of my most severe dread.

Great post! :thumbsup:thumbsup

[Real Realism]

I agree, :thumbsup. Absolutely wonderful explanation of your position, votive, and it very clearly mirrors my own conclusions and experiences.

I've never met anyone who prayed for the Holy Ghost, never got it, and gave up trying, walking away discouraged.

I have met people who prayed for months and years, and then received the experience of tongues, which they concluded as the fulfillment of their seeking to be filled with God's Spirit.

I have also met people who didn't really know much about the so-called "Pentecostal experience," but in their sincerity to know God more deeply, they were praying and experienced speaking in tongues. Which they later realized was being filled with the Holy Spirit.

All I know is what seems to be strongly suggested in Scripture (even if there are some gray areas) mirrors real life experiences. I can only share what I know to be true in my own life - what God has revealed to me. And that those who have not experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as I understand it, have an opportunity to receive this gift if they ask. Because I see the examples in Scripture, and I've seen the examples play out time and again in my lifetime with people I know personally.

[shazeep]

It's strange how the same experience seems to elicit different responses. While i would not think any less of anyone else's experience @ 'tongues,' i felt that if i had to describe it in a word, it would be 'regression.' Now, for all i know, that is when i 'received' the Holy Spirit; but judging on its fruit, in my and other lives, i am sceptical.

What is the fruit? In the Apostolic era, it is said that tongues served as a sign for unbelievers; one coming upon a native Apostle, preaching in a square, and hearing their own dialect coming out of the Apostle's mouth would surely have been arresting, to say the least. But of course few of us, at least, have ever experienced xenoglossy; and i find that my 'groanings,' which are in my prayers, and so by definition done in a prayer closet, with no one else around, cannot fit the definition. But let's say it does fit someone's definition; what is the fruit of this?

In one word, describe the fruit of today's Pentecostal speaking in tongues.

[houston]

oh my

[n david]

oh my
That's two words...

:lol

[KeptByTheWord]

Votive I appreciate the spirit with which you dialogue. :)

Agreed.... interesting reading... and wonderful that the dialogue is kind and without resorting to vitriol... which really disintegrates discussions once both views descend to that level.

Continue on... :highfive

[shazeep]

That's two words...

:lolLol. But really, we are told to judge by the fruit, are we not? And I don't mean to insinuate that there is none, here, when there very well might be; i just would be compelled to elevate "division" over "blessing."

[Pressing-On]

Lol. But really, we are told to judge by the fruit, are we not? And I don't mean to insinuate that there is none, here, when there very well might be; i just would be compelled to elevate "division" over "blessing."

Except that you can't overlook that Paul is speaking to the Church of Galatia, regarding the fruit of the spirit, who are already spirit filled.

Galatians 1:1-2 "Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me, To the churches in Galatia:..."

Why did Jesus say he had to go away? So that the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, would come.

[shazeep]

Well, i wouldn't deny that--we even have verses that plainly describe the fruit of tongues in the Apostolic Age. However, these cannot be applied to the current day; chiefly because our definition of 'speaking in tongues' seems to have been manipulated?

[Pressing-On]

Well, i wouldn't deny that--we even have verses that plainly describe the fruit of tongues in the Apostolic Age. However, these cannot be applied to the current day; chiefly because our definition of 'speaking in tongues' seems to have been manipulated?

The evidence hasn't changed since the Holy Ghost was poured out, so I don't know what you mean by manipulated.

[shazeep]

Um, well, i briefly described earlier--but anyone can see the difference in the tongues described in Scripture v what we are told that tongues is today, don't you think? I mean, back then, foreigners heard their own dialect coming from the mouth of someone who seemed to be understood by all, in their native language; today I'm supposed to buy that somehow my prayerful 'groanings,'--which, done properly, should never leave my prayer closet, btw--have become the 'speaking in tongues' that I'm supposed to be able to equate with the examples in the Apostolic Age.

So, i'd have to disagree and say that yes, the evidence seems to have most decidedly changed?

[shazeep]

But really, i am just (participating in an oft-repeated mental exercise, and don't really expect a valid answer at this point) trying to get to the 'fruit' of 'speaking in tongues,' Pentecostal.
Wadr, and with the understanding that tongues provides some (suspiciously Corinthian) feeling of...accomplishment? for some individuals, nevertheless how might the fruit of tongues be best described in a word? Or two? :D

[Pressing-On]

This is the second time I have posted something that was deleted. Is that happening to anyone else?

[Pressing-On]

Um, well, i briefly described earlier--but anyone can see the difference in the tongues described in Scripture v what we are told that tongues is today, don't you think? I mean, back then, foreigners heard their own dialect coming from the mouth of someone who seemed to be understood by all, in their native language; today I'm supposed to buy that somehow my prayerful 'groanings,'--which, done properly, should never leave my prayer closet, btw--have become the 'speaking in tongues' that I'm supposed to be able to equate with the examples in the Apostolic Age.

So, i'd have to disagree and say that yes, the evidence seems to have most decidedly changed?
No, speaking in tongues is another language you are not familiar with. I've never seen anyone filled any other way. If you are speaking another language, like the 17 various languages spoken on the Day of Pentecost, what changed? I don't see that anything has changed.

But really, i am just (participating in an oft-repeated mental exercise, and don't really expect a valid answer at this point) trying to get to the 'fruit' of 'speaking in tongues,' Pentecostal.
Wadr, and with the understanding that tongues provides some (suspiciously Corinthian) feeling of...accomplishment? for some individuals, nevertheless how might the fruit of tongues be best described in a word? Or two? :D

Why do you term it, "fruit of tongues"? I've never heard anyone ever say that.

[Sasha]

I have seen this, too, and it is hard to see, and I imagine even harder for the person involved.

As I see it, either one of two things is occurring:

1.) Tongues is not the initial evidence for at least ALL people when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and so, them expecting to speak in tongues is an incorrect expectation.

2.) God knows the heart and there really is a legitimate obstacle to them receiving the promised Spirit. Reasons may include unbelief, hidden sin, ignorance of the experience, indoctrination into false beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit or person of Christ, and even demonic possession (I've seen a few people who couldn't receive the Holy Spirit until they were delivered of the evil spirit or spirits that had possessed them).

Maybe someone else can come up with a 3rd possibility, but these two seem the most obvious.

The question then becomes: which one do we embrace?

Each will be fully persuaded in their own minds, hence my comment regarding diverging pneumatology.

In the end, we're all accountable to God for what we believe and teach. May the terror of the Lord persuade us to not be wrong!


Regardless of anything else to be agreed or disagreed upon, that last statement stands alone as the absolute truth!

[Sasha]

I started this thread after seeing a post where a mother spoke about how her 11 yr old son 'almost' received the Holy Ghost. He's repented and been baptized just recently. I don't believe he's harboring secret sin, grudges against another, confessing all but that one sin he can't tell anyone about...etc.

And the question is still unanswered. How does someone 'almost' receive the Holy Ghost, especially when there is no single example in scripture that this ever happened?

[KeptByTheWord]

Maybe the poor kid just needs someone to help him do a bit of this

:shockamoo

J/K... although I've seen this method way too many times myself.

[n david]

I started this thread after seeing a post where a mother spoke about how her 11 yr old son 'almost' received the Holy Ghost. He's repented and been baptized just recently. I don't believe he's harboring secret sin, grudges against another, confessing all but that one sin he can't tell anyone about...etc.

And the question is still unanswered. How does someone 'almost' receive the Holy Ghost, especially when there is no single example in scripture that this ever happened?
We neither are the kid in question, nor were any of us there, so we can't say why it didn't happen or even pass judgement on the mom saying he almost spoke in tongues.

It doesn't mean the kid had sin in his life. Maybe he got embarrassed. Maybe he got a little scared when he felt something he's not felt before.

The Scripture doesn't have any account of a child receiving the Holy Ghost. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it's not recorded. Who knows how long it took some to receive the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. You imply that the only Biblical way is immediately, without delay. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way.

[Real Realism]

And I keep coming back to Acts 8 where it was somehow obvious that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Ghost immediately, without delay. (Sure there's no indication of how long they prayed, or stammering lips, etc. But they believed, were baptized, and then days later someone sent for Peter and John to lay hands on them to receive it.)

Not explicit evidence, no. But very strong inference that mirrors experiences I've seen play out in life today.

[KeptByTheWord]

I've prayed with many people over the years who were seeking the HG. Most of the time, I discovered, they were simply seeking the HG, and didn't really have their focus on the Lord himself.

I've repeated my thoughts on this repeatedly through this thread, and most have scoffed at this. However, in my experience, every time I stopped the person seeking the HG, and talked to them quietly, and began to talk to them about Jesus, talked to them about being willing to serve Him, love Him, and surrender their life to Him, and began to change their focus and direction from seeking the HG to seeking Jesus... then they received.

Most recently, I was praying with 2 girls, who were teenagers, and who had been seeking the HG for a long time. They were cousins. In a sweet moving of the spirit service, they both began to seek the HG together. Tears running down their faces, sincere, and repentant as they could be. I came up to both of them, made them open their eyes, look at me, and began to talk to them about Jesus, how He loved them, and He wanted to make their life a beautiful thing. Just a few minutes and both of them were ready, and put their hands back in the air, and within just a few minutes of each other, they had BOTH received the HG! They both received together, it was just amazing, and the most beautiful praise and worship service was had by the congregation after this took place.

These girls didn't have to beg. They had already repented, and believed. Problem was, they were seeking the gift, and not the giver. I helped get their focus back on Jesus, and instantly, they received.

This is just one instance, and I could share many more. I have prayed many young children through to a beautiful HG experience, and I didn't have to shake, scream, yell, beg, or do any of that. Just speaking to them quietly, helping them understand, and focus on Jesus will almost always bring them to the place where they can receive.

No, there is no record in the NT about children receiving the HG experience, but I have seen young and old alike receive, and there is no way you could not say that the older received what the younger could not have.

I am convinced that if folks would quit trying to get people to seek the HG, and have them seek Jesus, knowing that He loves to give gifts to His children... the gift will come, once repentance has taken place.

[Pressing-On]

We neither are the kid in question, nor were any of us there, so we can't say why it didn't happen or even pass judgement on the mom saying he almost spoke in tongues.

It doesn't mean the kid had sin in his life. Maybe he got embarrassed. Maybe he got a little scared when he felt something he's not felt before.

The Scripture doesn't have any account of a child receiving the Holy Ghost. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it's not recorded. Who knows how long it took some to receive the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. You imply that the only Biblical way is immediately, without delay. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way.
Agreed! :thumbsup

This is interesting and important to the discussion.

When I read this portion of Votivesoul's post, I immediately remembered an incident where I had given a young woman a Bible study, she wanted to receive the Holy Ghost and would pray and pray at the altar, not yet receiving.

Of course, I couldn't understand why and I stepped aside, praying quietly, I asked God why she was not receiving the Holy Ghost. This was AFTER she married the guy she had been living with. He brought this scripture to mind - "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break." Matt 9:17

I also remember an evangelist sharing that he prayed for the Holy Ghost every service for a number of months - I think 6 months. He said that he prayed so much that people got tired of praying with him. lol One service, he was lying under a pew, God spoke to him about something he had in his home that he needed to get rid of. He didn't share what that was, but stated that after he had cleansed his home, he was filled.

I believe that repentance entails more than what people think or understand. Someone mentioned a person having bitterness over childhood abuse which hindered them receiving the Spirit. I don't believe, in most cases, something like bitterness comes to a person's mind when they repent. These things need to be taught, although I don't doubt they have been...just maybe not in every case.



This is true. But sometimes a specific obedience is also required. God will often deal with a person about a specific hindrance, usually a particular work of the flesh, that is still separating them from Him (and them from receiving His Spirit).

Now, we may say "But the person has received and believed the Gospel, they confessed their sins, and asked for forgiveness. No way they are harboring unbelief and/or secret sin"!

We can't know that with certainty. Vocal confessions of faith in Christ and the Gospel are nearly useless. God knows the heart, no matter what is said. He will search them and try them. Many want to be saved, but secretly refuse to separate themselves from the very thing God wants to save them from: a sinful, even damning life enslaved to the old man.

Such a person, even if they confess all the right things, if they don't let go, or aren't at least willing, relying on God's help to help them, are never going to receive the Holy Spirit.

[Pressing-On]

I've prayed with many people over the years who were seeking the HG. Most of the time, I discovered, they were simply seeking the HG, and didn't really have their focus on the Lord himself.

I've repeated my thoughts on this repeatedly through this thread, and most have scoffed at this. However, in my experience, every time I stopped the person seeking the HG, and talked to them quietly, and began to talk to them about Jesus, talked to them about being willing to serve Him, love Him, and surrender their life to Him, and began to change their focus and direction from seeking the HG to seeking Jesus... then they received.

Most recently, I was praying with 2 girls, who were teenagers, and who had been seeking the HG for a long time. They were cousins. In a sweet moving of the spirit service, they both began to seek the HG together. Tears running down their faces, sincere, and repentant as they could be. I came up to both of them, made them open their eyes, look at me, and began to talk to them about Jesus, how He loved them, and He wanted to make their life a beautiful thing. Just a few minutes and both of them were ready, and put their hands back in the air, and within just a few minutes of each other, they had BOTH received the HG! They both received together, it was just amazing, and the most beautiful praise and worship service was had by the congregation after this took place.

These girls didn't have to beg. They had already repented, and believed. Problem was, they were seeking the gift, and not the giver. I helped get their focus back on Jesus, and instantly, they received.

This is just one instance, and I could share many more. I have prayed many young children through to a beautiful HG experience, and I didn't have to shake, scream, yell, beg, or do any of that. Just speaking to them quietly, helping them understand, and focus on Jesus will almost always bring them to the place where they can receive.

No, there is no record in the NT about children receiving the HG experience, but I have seen young and old alike receive, and there is no way you could not say that the older received what the younger could not have.

I am convinced that if folks would quit trying to get people to seek the HG, and have them seek Jesus, knowing that He loves to give gifts to His children... the gift will come, once repentance has taken place.
You are reminding me of when my daughter was praying for the Holy Ghost when she was about 8 years old. She would open her eyes, look around, and begin to cry again. lol

I stopped her and asked her what she was doing. She said, "It gets me going." lol

I told her that God didn't want her to pray that way. That if she was going to cry, it needed to be because she felt she loved God and wanted to receive the Holy Ghost.

After that instruction, I am happy to say that she did receive the Holy Ghost that night and spoke for a long time. It was very awesome.

I don't think we should allow children to cry and carry on because they think they need to do that, emulating the adults around them. And I am not saying that adults are being insincere with their tears, it just might be the way a child interprets that. They are masters at emulation - which could go for many other topics as well.

[Pressing-On]

And I keep coming back to Acts 8 where it was somehow obvious that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Ghost immediately, without delay. (Sure there's no indication of how long they prayed, or stammering lips, etc. But they believed, were baptized, and then days later someone sent for Peter and John to lay hands on them to receive it.)

Not explicit evidence, no. But very strong inference that mirrors experiences I've seen play out in life today.

Good post, BTW, Real! :thumbsup

[Jason B]

And I keep coming back to Acts 8 where it was somehow obvious that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Ghost immediately, without delay. (Sure there's no indication of how long they prayed, or stammering lips, etc. But they believed, were baptized, and then days later someone sent for Peter and John to lay hands on them to receive it.)

Not explicit evidence, no. But very strong inference that mirrors experiences I've seen play out in life today.

In dealing with Acts 8 I think we have to really ask, "Does Acts 8 represent the normative universal conversion experience for all people in all cultures for all times (since 33AD) OR is God doing something exceptional there, that served a very specific purpose?"

I think that's a legitimate question. Me personally, I lean towards affirming the latter.

[KeptByTheWord]

PO, yes, I do believe repentance plays a huge role. Far more obviously in adults than in children.

And yes, children copy and imitate what they see happening around them.

And to further that thought, I have seen when children are seeking the HG, that many times they pray out of fear, because they don't want to go to hell. I know I had to talk both my children out of that. It is something that is just picked up by being a part of Pentecostal services. Fear played a huge role in just about every child I have prayed with. When you get them to focus on Jesus, and you ask them if they are sorry for their sins, and of course they are, then it is easy to move them onward to loving Jesus, surrendering their life to Him, and then seeing as the gift comes so easily to them.

When praying with children who want to be saved, who want the HG, then most often you have to address the fear factor that is really strong in their minds, as I know it was in my own children, and even in my own life, as I received the HG at the age of 5.

Once you can help children move past the fear of hell (unfortunately that is the part preached that they hear), and look into the face of Jesus with love, that is something I've almost always seen change their focus, and they receive.

[Pressing-On]

In dealing with Acts 8 I think we have to really ask, "Does Acts 8 represent the normative universal conversion experience for all people in all cultures for all times (since 33AD) OR is God doing something exceptional there, that served a very specific purpose?"

I think that's a legitimate question. Me personally, I lean towards affirming the latter.

Is Acts 8 any different than I Tim 4:14 (neglect not the gift that was given you by prophecy and with laying on of hands) or Hebrews 6:1-2 (laying on of hands, etc. and this will we do if God permit)?

[Pressing-On]

PO, yes, I do believe repentance plays a huge role. Far more obviously in adults than in children.

And yes, children copy and imitate what they see happening around them.

And to further that thought, I have seen when children are seeking the HG, that many times they pray out of fear, because they don't want to go to hell. I know I had to talk both my children out of that. It is something that is just picked up by being a part of Pentecostal services. Fear played a huge role in just about every child I have prayed with. When you get them to focus on Jesus, and you ask them if they are sorry for their sins, and of course they are, then it is easy to move them onward to loving Jesus, surrendering their life to Him, and then seeing as the gift comes so easily to them.

When praying with children who want to be saved, who want the HG, then most often you have to address the fear factor that is really strong in their minds, as I know it was in my own children, and even in my own life, as I received the HG at the age of 5.

Once you can help children move past the fear of hell (unfortunately that is the part preached that they hear), and look into the face of Jesus with love, that is something I've almost always seen change their focus, and they receive.

I agree that those elements are present in some, although my children didn't pray out of fear of going to hell. I think it all depends on leadership.

I prayed for the Holy Ghost because I heard people speak in tongues and I read the Word noting the scripture references. What hindered me for 3 months after I was baptized is that I didn't think I was worthy. When I got past that, I was able to yield. It happened that I needed to be in a group setting, at camp meeting - youth camp, to hear testimonies of broken lives being repaired. If He could do that for them, he could do it for me.

[KeptByTheWord]

I heard a statement made by Corrie Ten Boom...

Fear knocked at the door,
Faith answered.
No one was there.

Faith in Jesus, a willingness to surrender your life to him, at whatever the cost, and a knowledge that the gift of the HG is for you, is just about the best way I've seen people receive the HG.

However, when I think of what Corrie Ten Boom had to say about faith... I believe it applies here. When faith floods one's heart, fear has to leave, sins are repented of, and with that faith, one can receive the gift Jesus wants to give those who believe in Him.

For some people, all of these things can take place in an instant.

For others, it may be a gradual letting go of things or hindrances to surrender in their lives, but either way... if faith in Jesus and the knowledge that He desires to fill his children with his Spirit is present, and sin has been repented of.... The spirit of Jesus is free to enter that vessel, and take up residence.

[KeptByTheWord]

Is Acts 8 any different than I Tim 4:14 (neglect not the gift that was given you by prophecy and with laying on of hands) or Hebrews 6:1-2 (laying on of hands, etc. and this will we do if God permit)?

I have always thought it very intriguing that many of the references to those receiving the HG in the book of Acts involve the laying on of hands of the apostles. I have studied this, and believe that there is something very significant in the laying on of hands, especially as it is mentioned as a tenet of the gospel in Hebrews.

[KeptByTheWord]

In dealing with Acts 8 I think we have to really ask, "Does Acts 8 represent the normative universal conversion experience for all people in all cultures for all times (since 33AD) OR is God doing something exceptional there, that served a very specific purpose?"

I think that's a legitimate question. Me personally, I lean towards affirming the latter.

Jason, Do you know people who claim to be spirit fiilled, yet do not have the gift of tongues?

[Praxeas]

Is Acts 8 any different than I Tim 4:14 (neglect not the gift that was given you by prophecy and with laying on of hands) or Hebrews 6:1-2 (laying on of hands, etc. and this will we do if God permit)?
Yes.

Acts 8 they received the Spirit.

1Tim 4:4 Tim already had been given a charismatic gift OF the Spirit

[Praxeas]

I have always thought it very intriguing that many of the references to those receiving the HG in the book of Acts involve the laying on of hands of the apostles. I have studied this, and believe that there is something very significant in the laying on of hands, especially as it is mentioned as a tenet of the gospel in Hebrews.
Except Cornelius

[votivesoul]

Regarding Acts 8, we can only know so much.

We can know that it was affirmed by Luke that the Holy Spirit hadn't fallen on any of them, even though they all had received the Gospel, believed on the Lord Jesus, and had been immersed in the name of the Same.

The question then is: Why did the Holy Spirit of God not come upon them at any point during the three things mentioned above (i.e. receiving the Gospel, believing on the Lord, and being baptized in His name)?

- Was God being capricious?
- Was He attempting to do something unique so we could distinguish it from other accounts in Acts?
- Was it a back-up plan chosen to help prove that there must be an identifiable proof of receiving the Holy Spirit?
- Was it so we would have a record 1,970 years later to argue over?
- Was it so Simon Peter could be involved in their salvation since he had been given the keys to the kingdom?
- Was it merely because they were Samaritans and needed something different to occur based on that fact?

We are never going to know for sure. Who hath the mind of Lord, that we may declare it?

But what if we don't question God in order to undertake assumptive questions?

What if we question whether or not there was something that God could not do among the Samaritans in Acts 8 until Simon Peter and John arrived?

I am convinced this is the case.

As KeptbytheWord has shared, there are always reason why people don't receive the Holy Spirit, i.e. that the Holy Spirit doesn't "fall" on some people.

As she stated, seeking the gift and not the Giver is a key reason (I knew a child whose mother had taught her son that he needed to receive tongues [i.e. she called the Holy Spirit "tongues"]. When I prayed with him, I had to divest him of this false notion, and redirect his attention to the Lord. He was at first mad, even trying to fake speaking in tongues, becoming even angrier when I told him I knew he was faking it. But the next service, when he had calmed down, and kept his mind on the Lord and not tongues, he received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues just fine).

From my own experience, I've become completely convinced that as with Simon Peter and John, there are people today who are supernaturally gifted to help people receive the Holy Spirit, chiefly by having the gift of faith operate in their lives.

Now, not everyone needs someone gifted by God in such a way to receive the Holy Spirit. But many, many do.

I have seen people being prayed for, with no progress being made toward them receiving the Holy Spirit. The people praying then go and summon someone and in a few minutes, the seeker is fully immersed in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues.

It's not a discredit to anyone. It's just an operation of God because He is sovereign. Philip was not less of an evangelist because the Spirit wasn't falling in his ministry. He did well, and fulfilled his part in the spreading of the Gospel.

It's the same today. Many do their part, but God wants to use another saint in the part they play in salvation, so He can get the credit and glory.

Regarding the initial post that started all this, we may not be able to satisfactorily answer how someone "almost" receives the Holy Spirit. But we can not worry too much. God is faithful, and He will keep His promises. And the Holy Spirit is promised to the child in question, no doubt about it.

[votivesoul]

To those who have shared kind words, I appreciate them. Thank you.

2 Timothy 2:24-25,

24. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

We should all remember to not strive and instead be gentle to everyone, if we have any desire to be the Lord's servants.

Contrawise, a brother or sister who rails and condemns is to be dis-fellowshipped from the community of the believers.

1 Corinthians 5:11,

11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

I submit these verses apply to our conduct on a message board, as much as any other area of life.

[Dordrecht]

Jason, Do you know people who claim to be spirit fiilled, yet do not have the gift of tongues?

I don't, but lots of Baptists and other non-pentecostals claim they do.
Actually now I think about it….I know some "pentecostals" that also claim they do.

[Originalist]

It comes from people (and kids) who have stammering lips but have not (fully/at all) spoken in tongues. They were close, were almost about to, but then stopped for whatever reason, before the Spirit baptized them.


But that would mean tongues precedes the baptism. I think people with stammering lips received the Holy
Ghost. We're human. We might get overwhelmed at what's happen, get startled, and then not fully speak out what God was giving us. But that does not mean his spirit did not baptize and regenerate us. The fruit will tell the latter. They can always get more tongues later. And yes, I am a so called "three stepper".


I have not read every page of this thread so pardon me if this was already covered.

[Originalist]

In dealing with Acts 8 I think we have to really ask, "Does Acts 8 represent the normative universal conversion experience for all people in all cultures for all times (since 33AD) OR is God doing something exceptional there, that served a very specific purpose?"

I think that's a legitimate question. Me personally, I lean towards affirming the latter.

Funny though how this pattern is the norm throughout Acts. The Spirit simply did not automatically come upon confession of Christ. There is a delay from moments to days, and it is always very dramatic.

[Pressing-On]

Yes.

Acts 8 they received the Spirit.

1Tim 4:4 Tim already had been given a charismatic gift OF the Spirit

I'm not sure it is talking only about a "charismatic gift of the spirit", but the initial infilling gift of the Holy Ghost...the Spirit that qualified him for work in the ministry.

I Tim 4:1 begins with, "...in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving head to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."

It says in 2 Timothy 4:5 "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

I believe the admonition goes to the very core of our relationship with God. It involves a much deeper aspect, IMO, than only being used in the "gifts".

[shazeep]

No, speaking in tongues is another language you are not familiar with.This seems like a fail to me on its face, as that is 'xenoglossy,' and yet we (arguably) practice 'glossololia,' or at least that is how i characterize my experience; not saying that xenoglossy is now impossible, but who has ever seen this present-day?
I've never seen anyone filled any other way.This seems to ignore that one is filled with the Holy Spirit whenever they rebound ('repent')
Why do you term it, "fruit of tongues"? I've never heard anyone ever say that.Yes, but wadr, the Bible is full of concepts that you will never hear preached in an affiliated church; i'm sure that as a serious student you can confirm this. So--using some serious shorthand here--because we undeniably have a 'gift' of 'tongues,' satan has a counterpart, yes? And so each will have a 'spirit' attached, and each will have a 'fruit,' which i don't have to tell you is how we are to judge a thing.

i have no problem admitting that i believe Speaking in Tongues as the Spirit gives utterance is a gift of God (and, one that we are prolly going to see evidence of here again pretty soon); but i mean xenoglossy, and personally cannot abide with the initial evidence of, hopefully for obvious reasons. My theory is that we participate in with the initial evidence of to cloud the real 'tongues' when it does appear, ie when the Spirit gives utterance; it will now be possible to diminish whole crowds attesting to have heard in their native dialect with a single word.

[KeptByTheWord]

What if we question whether or not there was something that God could not do among the Samaritans in Acts 8 until Simon Peter and John arrived?

I am convinced this is the case.

As KeptbytheWord has shared, there are always reason why people don't receive the Holy Spirit, i.e. that the Holy Spirit doesn't "fall" on some people.

As she stated, seeking the gift and not the Giver is a key reason (I knew a child whose mother had taught her son that he needed to receive tongues [i.e. she called the Holy Spirit "tongues"]. When I prayed with him, I had to divest him of this false notion, and redirect his attention to the Lord. He was at first mad, even trying to fake speaking in tongues, becoming even angrier when I told him I knew he was faking it. But the next service, when he had calmed down, and kept his mind on the Lord and not tongues, he received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues just fine).

The reason, I believe, that there was little evidence in the NT where people had to tarry, and "wait" for the gift, was because of the way the gospel was presented. The gospel that the apostles preached was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and whoever heard it, didn't hear minced words, they heard the glorious news. Upon hearing, they received, because they believed, without the hindrances of man's traditions being in their way.

The gospel presented today is full of man's traditions. For example, there is no scriptural basis for an altar to seek the HG at. There is no reference to an "altar, etc. People heard and received the gospel wherever they were, they believed and received, in a house, on the street, wherever. There are a lot of preconceived notions in the church that things have to be done a certain way, but in reality, the NT church had no preconceived notions to get out of they way. They heard, they believed, and they received.

From my own experience, I've become completely convinced that as with Simon Peter and John, there are people today who are supernaturally gifted to help people receive the Holy Spirit, chiefly by having the gift of faith operate in their lives.

Now, not everyone needs someone gifted by God in such a way to receive the Holy Spirit. But many, many do.

I have seen people being prayed for, with no progress being made toward them receiving the Holy Spirit. The people praying then go and summon someone and in a few minutes, the seeker is fully immersed in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues.

It's not a discredit to anyone. It's just an operation of God because He is sovereign. Philip was not less of an evangelist because the Spirit wasn't falling in his ministry. He did well, and fulfilled his part in the spreading of the Gospel.

It's the same today. Many do their part, but God wants to use another saint in the part they play in salvation, so He can get the credit and glory.

Regarding the initial post that started all this, we may not be able to satisfactorily answer how someone "almost" receives the Holy Spirit. But we can not worry too much. God is faithful, and He will keep His promises. And the Holy Spirit is promised to the child in question, no doubt about it.

God's ways are truly not our ways.

Too, I know that we can never go back to the way it was in the NT early church. But if we can try to glean as much knowledge from how it was in the beginning, and try to apply it to our lives as much as possible, that is what we should strive for.

[KeptByTheWord]

I'm not sure it is talking only about a "charismatic gift of the spirit", but the initial infilling gift of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit that qualified him for work in the ministry.

I Tim 4:1 begins with, "...in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving head to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."

It says in 2 Timothy 4:5 "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

I believe the admonition goes to the very core of our relationship with God. It involves a much deeper aspect, IMO, than only being used in the "gifts".

Yes, I think so too.

[shazeep]

(In the end, we're all accountable to God for what we believe and teach. May the terror of the Lord persuade us to not be wrong!)
Regardless of anything else to be agreed or disagreed upon, that last statement stands alone as the absolute truth!Amen. If i were to characterize the fruit of speaking in tongues as we currently see it, i would have to pick a word like division, and i think the disagreement (among honest, seeking believers) is for a sign.

[KeptByTheWord]

This seems like a fail to me on its face, as that is 'xenoglossy,' and yet we (arguably) practice 'glossololia,' or at least that is how i characterize my experience; not saying that xenoglossy is now impossible, but who has ever seen this present-day?
This seems to ignore that one is filled with the Holy Spirit whenever they rebound ('repent')
Yes, but wadr, the Bible is full of concepts that you will never hear preached in an affiliated church; i'm sure that as a serious student you can confirm this. So--using some serious shorthand here--because we undeniably have a 'gift' of 'tongues,' satan has a counterpart, yes? And so each will have a 'spirit' attached, and each will have a 'fruit,' which i don't have to tell you is how we are to judge a thing.

i have no problem admitting that i believe Speaking in Tongues as the Spirit gives utterance is a gift of God (and, one that we are prolly going to see evidence of here again pretty soon); but i mean xenoglossy, and personally cannot abide with the initial evidence of, hopefully for obvious reasons. My theory is that we participate in with the initial evidence of to cloud the real 'tongues' when it does appear, ie when the Spirit gives utterance; it will now be possible to diminish whole crowds attesting to have heard in their native dialect with a single word.

I know many people who have spoken in literal languages when receiving the HG. One friend had the spirit come on her (after already being spirit filled for some time) in a church service. A visiting minister heard her speaking in fluent French praising and exalting Jesus. He had grown up in French-speaking parts of Louisiana, or Cajun, and this was the dialect she was speaking in fluently, praising Jesus.

Oh yes, the language the Lord gives is beautiful, and sometimes recognizable, and while some may speak a language no man on earth has heard, there have been enough people who have spoken in languages fluently that they did not know, praising the Lord through that language, for me to believe, this is something that didn't die out 2000 years ago. It is alive and well today.

[KeptByTheWord]

(In the end, we're all accountable to God for what we believe and teach. May the terror of the Lord persuade us to not be wrong!)
Amen. If i were to characterize the fruit of speaking in tongues as we currently see it, i would have to pick a word like division, and i think the disagreement (among honest, seeking believers) is for a sign.

Why do you think tongues cause division?

[KeptByTheWord]

To those who have shared kind words, I appreciate them. Thank you.

2 Timothy 2:24-25,



We should all remember to not strive and instead be gentle to everyone, if we have any desire to be the Lord's servants.

Contrawise, a brother or sister who rails and condemns is to be dis-fellowshipped from the community of the believers.

1 Corinthians 5:11,



I submit these verses apply to our conduct on a message board, as much as any other area of life.

This needs to be posted where all can see! :highfive

[shazeep]

And I keep coming back to Acts 8 where it was somehow obvious that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Ghost immediately, without delay. (Sure there's no indication of how long they prayed, or stammering lips, etc. But they believed, were baptized, and then days later someone sent for Peter and John to lay hands on them to receive it.).Apostles.

I'm not sure, but it would not surprise me if this was about the last example of the Spirit giving utterance that we have recorded, as i think we move into a new Church 'chapter' (if you will) right after Acts 8, more or less. The 'Church' that is Christ's bride having now been 'established' in the Canon.

[Pressing-On]

Apostles.

I'm not sure, but it would not surprise me if this was about the last example of the Spirit giving utterance that we have recorded, as i think we move into a new Church 'chapter' (if you will) right after Acts 8, more or less. The 'Church' that is Christ's bride having now been 'established' in the Canon.

Are you saying that you hold to the view of Cessationism?

[shazeep]

Too, I know that we can never go back to the way it was in the NT early church. But if we can try to glean as much knowledge from how it was in the beginning, and try to apply it to our lives as much as possible, that is what we should strive for.ok, good stuff! and this is going to sound like disagreement here, but i believe that we are going to be going back to the way it was in the early church, tongues and all. Soon. We even get hints in the NT, prophecies, that allude to how the Church we have now is not the Church we had in the Apostolic Age (scattering, etc.), and that we will get a resurgence of the 'early' Church in the end times.

As evidence i might present that we are (nominally) a "Christian" nation, and yet just lately here, especially, scattering seems to apply more and more to Christianity?
(looking up 'cessationism')

[shazeep]

In dealing with Acts 8 I think we have to really ask, "Does Acts 8 represent the normative universal conversion experience for all people in all cultures for all times (since 33AD) OR is God doing something exceptional there, that served a very specific purpose?"

I think that's a legitimate question. Me personally, I lean towards affirming the latter.i agree. a lot.

[shazeep]

PO, yes, I do believe repentance plays a huge role. Far more obviously in adults than in children.

And yes, children copy and imitate what they see happening around them.

And to further that thought, I have seen when children are seeking the HG, that many times they pray out of fear, because they don't want to go to hell. I know I had to talk both my children out of that. It is something that is just picked up by being a part of Pentecostal services. Fear played a huge role in just about every child I have prayed with. When you get them to focus on Jesus, and you ask them if they are sorry for their sins, and of course they are, then it is easy to move them onward to loving Jesus, surrendering their life to Him, and then seeing as the gift comes so easily to them.

When praying with children who want to be saved, who want the HG, then most often you have to address the fear factor that is really strong in their minds, as I know it was in my own children, and even in my own life, as I received the HG at the age of 5.

Once you can help children move past the fear of hell (unfortunately that is the part preached that they hear), and look into the face of Jesus with love, that is something I've almost always seen change their focus, and they receive.Ha, well, now you'll have me testing my last post, as i have now overcome the fear that i was surely coming from then. Hmm.

[shazeep]

I know many people who have spoken in literal languages when receiving the HG. One friend had the spirit come on her (after already being spirit filled for some time) in a church service. A visiting minister heard her speaking in fluent French praising and exalting Jesus. He had grown up in French-speaking parts of Louisiana, or Cajun, and this was the dialect she was speaking in fluently, praising Jesus.

Oh yes, the language the Lord gives is beautiful, and sometimes recognizable, and while some may speak a language no man on earth has heard, there have been enough people who have spoken in languages fluently that they did not know, praising the Lord through that language, for me to believe, this is something that didn't die out 2000 years ago. It is alive and well today.Awesome! Wadr, these stories always seem to be 'second-hand,' and my (knee-jerk) response to "French" might be "one really shouldn't need a native French speaker present to recog French," but that is just being critical, and i have heard enough of these, even second hand, that i really can't doubt.

[shazeep]

Why do you think tongues cause division?Hmm. This conversation. The fact that the doctrine has literally split churches. Even Christ's Word to that effect. May not necessarily be a bad thing. I wouldn't say "tongues cause division" but that the fruit of tongues currently seems to best be characterized as division--understanding that you were just prolly using shorthand there. I'd love a testimony from the French speaker (et al) here, on what fruit might have come of her receiving the gift.

[shazeep]

I have always thought it very intriguing that many of the references to those receiving the HG in the book of Acts involve the laying on of hands of the apostles. I have studied this, and believe that there is something very significant in the laying on of hands, especially as it is mentioned as a tenet of the gospel in Hebrews.Apostles again. Do we have any Scrip examples of tongues not via an Apostle? i really have no idea...

[shazeep]

Are you saying that you hold to the view of Cessationism?my jury is still out there, but simple observation tells me that this seems to be true. i should note here that i most likely had feelings of 'unworthiness' when i sought tongues, and this could have been a factor. i also might have been in the wrong church or something--although they certainly seemed sincere--and although this would seem to be a pretty strange thing (on God's part), to allow a new believer to get their impression of a gift from the counterfeit. But God works in mysterious ways.

[shazeep]

Evangelistic Temple in Houston, they still around?
and, great stuff! i'll be the rest of the day reviewing the posts not directed at me here, lol, i've noted a lot of good stuff in passing. i would guess that the fruit of the counterfeit is division, and the real deal would of course exhibit agreement, at least among believers, but this may be a bit simplistic?

[Real Realism]

Awesome! Wadr, these stories always seem to be 'second-hand,' and my (knee-jerk) response to "French" might be "one really shouldn't need a native French speaker present to recog French," but that is just being critical, and i have heard enough of these, even second hand, that i really can't doubt.

There was a young man (about 15 years old) years ago who connected with our church - he had some mental challenges, and was in foster care. We did meet his parents, who had contact with him, though he was in the system. The family was as white as could be.

I say that because when this young man received the Holy Ghost, he was speaking Spanish. I'm not a native nor fluent nor even proficient Spanish speaker. But I recognized enough to identify phrases of him praising God in Spanish, and saying some other things I didn't recognize.

From all we knew of him (his family background, where he was staying, his handicaps) there was no opportunity for him to have learned the language himself.

There's my first hand account, for what it's worth. It's also the only time I've witness an identifiable language spoken when someone "spoke in tongues".

[Pressing-On]

my jury is still out there, but simple observation tells me that this seems to be true. i should note here that i most likely had feelings of 'unworthiness' when i sought tongues, and this could have been a factor. i also might have been in the wrong church or something--although they certainly seemed sincere--and although this would seem to be a pretty strange thing (on God's part), to allow a new believer to get their impression of a gift from the counterfeit. But God works in mysterious ways.

Thanks for the response. I agree that many have feelings of being unworthy. That is something interesting to explore, along with the other possible factors we have discussed here.

I remember after being baptized the pastor asked if I felt that God had forgiven me. I shook my head, "No". That was the beginning of my being hindered from receiving the Holy Ghost for a time.

Have to go and clean up my shop outside - ugh! Have a great weekend to you and everyone else posting today.

[shazeep]

Hmm, that sure resonates; and i hadn't really committed any heinous sins, murder or anything, to "justify" feeling "not forgiven."There was a young man (about 15 years old) years ago who connected with our church - he had some mental challenges, and was in foster care. We did meet his parents, who had contact with him, though he was in the system. The family was as white as could be.

I say that because when this young man received the Holy Ghost, he was speaking Spanish. I'm not a native nor fluent nor even proficient Spanish speaker. But I recognized enough to identify phrases of him praising God in Spanish, and saying some other things I didn't recognize.

From all we knew of him (his family background, where he was staying, his handicaps) there was no opportunity for him to have learned the language himself.

There's my first hand account, for what it's worth. It's also the only time I've witness an identifiable language spoken when someone "spoke in tongues".Sweet! I would be curious to know if any 'fruit' became evident in the moment (lost Latin speakers being moved, etc), while seeing that any such evidence being apparent is not mandatory there.

[Jason B]

Jason, Do you know people who claim to be spirit fiilled, yet do not have the gift of tongues?

Yes. Many and I believe them to be based on the fruit I see in their life and the fellowship of the Spirit I've felt with them.

Some of the most godly dedicated sacrificing examples of faith I've ever met have been Christians within the oneness movement. But I've found people equally Christian (if not more so, and of course I speak as a foolish man not knowing the hearts of men)--amongst trinitarian Christians. Believe what you want but I believe there are both Biblical and practical reasons to believe tongues us not the one and only initial evidence that someone has been baptized by God's Spirit.

[Jason B]

Funny though how this pattern is the norm throughout Acts. The Spirit simply did not automatically come upon confession of Christ. There is a delay from moments to days, and it is always very dramatic.

Always? There are 21 accounts of conversions in Acts. 2 of those show tongues coming. (Acts 10 & 19). A third could be Acts 8 (I'm willing to grant that argument b/c I believe it myself). So what about the other 18 accounts? What about the Ethiopian eunuch? The Phillipian jailers household? The 5,000 who heard Peter's message in Acts 3 and believed (Acts 4:4) or even the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost who believed and were baptized (like the Phillipian jailer) and thus added to the church (Acts 2:41)?

[rdp]

*If you have never spoke in tongues you've not received the Holy Spirit - nor been biblically born-again (Acts 2.1-4; 8; 10; 19; I Cor. 14; John 3.8).



*Trinitarians are not biblical "Christians," they are "Trinitarians" (Mark 12.28-29; Jn. 8.24; I Tim. 3.16)








:thumbsup

[KeptByTheWord]

I had lunch with a dear friend this week. She believes in the trinity. I asked her specifically, do you believe in three gods? She was SHOCKED that I would even ask such a thing. Of course not, there is only ONE God, she said.

So.... a lady who believes in the Trinity, believes in one God. How's that for some excitement in the camp, and a real splash of cold water in the face of people like RDP who think that trinitarians believe in three gods, because they don't. They just have a different way of explaining it.

I know that there are "tritheists" who do believe in the three-godhead... but most of the people who say they believe in the trinity, will affirm that there is only ONE god, and that he is Jesus.

[rdp]

I had lunch with a dear friend this week. She believes in the trinity. I asked her specifically, do you believe in three gods? She was SHOCKED that I would even ask such a thing. Of course not, there is only ONE God, she said.

So.... a lady who believes in the Trinity, believes in one God. How's that for some excitement in the camp, and a real splash of cold water in the face of people like RDP who think that trinitarians believe in three gods, because they don't. They just have a different way of explaining it.

I know that there are "tritheists" who do believe in the three-godhead... but most of the people who say they believe in the trinity, will affirm that there is only ONE god, and that he is Jesus.


LOL - RDP has been intensely studying the Trinity doctrine for almost 20 years now & I well know what they believe & teach. Remember, there's a diff. in "Confessional Tritheism" vs. "Conceptual Tritheism" :thumbsup.