TRANSCRIPT Of Message By HANEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Truthhurts

I have a quick question if it is a promise or free gift only.....why are so many rejecting it. I want everything I can get from God myself.

If it is a promise why is God keeping it from so many............Just a question....truthhurts

Originally Posted by Truthhurts

I don't have to do that...........No But you get too

Bump de Bump bump

The promise, also called the Gift of the Holy Ghost is used in Acts synonymously with "baptized with","received", "poured out" and "Filled".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Honestly, I had a very tender conscience and a healthy fear of the Lord long before I spoke in tongues.

I distinctly remember praying for the Lord to allow me to speak in tongues-- in a way that I would KNOW that it was Him and not me, at all. He has given me that experience, by His Grace, over and over again. Thank You Jesus!


Our Pentecostal culture teaches that there MUST be a verifiable sign of a person receiving salvation. Maybe this is a lack of faith on our part. After all, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Not at all! In fact we receive this gift with the visible sign by faith. It's faith in the invisible God and His promises that produce something not "invisible" or unseen. The seen is just the result. The lame man healed received the visible or tangable result of faith in the invisible.

Anyways this expectation you can blame on the Methodists who used to teach tarrying for a confirmation experience of your salvation...it wasn't necessarily tongues though.

And no, if you speak in tongues and don't have the fruit of the Spirit you are either not saved or in need of a swift spiritual kick in the butt and to grow up as the Corinthians needed

[tv1a]

The Holy Ghost is no more important than repentance and baptism. Why do we treat it as the little magic blue pill?

What wasn't mentioned is the attrition rate of churches who emphasize a tongue talking experience over an experience of repentance.

Originally Posted by StMark

DID you see this!!!! This is transcribed from the Message that Haney preached where he talked about his big meeting with the Charismatic Leaders!!! This was posted on another preacher's forum!!



"This past week I was called upon to attend a forum in Southern California... Irvine area.

Actually, I had just canceled those three days about a month and a half before, and so when they called they said, "The meeting is urgent, we're sorry we could only let you know a week and a half in advance, but we feel it's of great importance and we want you, please Reverend Haney, to come." I asked my secretary, "Am I free?" she said, "you're free." I said, "Tell them I'll be there."

That meeting was a meeting of most all of the leaders of Pentecostal, quote/unquote, organizations and denominations in America. And most so-called "Charismatic" leaders. Talk about "The Great Speckled Bird", that was me! The discussion was on the subject of "What has happened to the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement? It has lost something." Now, because of my position as the leader of the largest Oneness Pentecostal organization in the world, that's why I was there.

That evening in the discussion as I sat next to Dr. Jack Hayford, there were people there like Dr. Vinson Synan the notorious historian of Pentecostalism and others. Dr. Synan said to me at a coffee break, "Brother Haney, you people have found something that the rest of these folks don't know. What's going on?" He said, "You're still happy to be called Pentecostals and proud of it." I said, "Yes sir! I'm one of them!"

The discussion that night blew me out of the water, so to speak. I never dreamed in my wildest imagination that I would ever hear the kind of discussion... I'm talking about the largest Charismatic movements in the world there... and they were saying things like this; "Charismaticism will be over in the next two years... it's dying... we have nothing" things like this. This is the reason I'm not naming some of the people that were present there, because they were honest and they were sincere, and I became a friend to them. But they would say things like this, "we're sick of the froth and the foam. Nobody ever preaches on the Cross anymore." One of them said, "we hardly ever hear a message on repentance, and we're dying." It was amazing to hear. In fact, one young man who was over a large youth organization that is all across America got there a little late for the discussion, so when he walked in... we had already had a pretty lengthy discussion... one of the moderators, I think it was Jack Hayford over that session asked, "Ron, do you have anything to say?" He said, "Yes I do... I don't know what you've said, but I'm sick and tired of preachers getting a divorce one week and being on television preaching the next week." He said, "I think we ought to protest every TV station that would have such a man."

Folks, that's not one of us, that's them!

Why are you telling us all this? I'm telling you, we've got a hold of something so great, we can't afford to sell it out, and we'd better thank God we have it, and everyday you ought to talk in tongues and say, "I think you, Jesus for a pure heart! I thank you for a pastor that will preach the Truth to me! The unadulterated Word of God!"

In fact that night, I said... before... I said, "Gentlemen, I want to say something here. I never dreamed I would hear what I have heard from you. But this is the way we believe." In one discussion I was in, they said, "Well only about 20% of our new converts even receive the Holy Ghost." And I said, "I can answer that for you. When you preach it as a prerogative, it won't happen much longer. But when you preach it as part of the plan..." As the matter of fact, you may remember our choir from here sang at our great Azusa Street celebration. I was on the steering committee for that, and that same group from all around the world and from North America came, but the United Pentecostal Church rented the Olympic auditorium, and friends, we worked for almost a year before we got there, and people were getting the Holy Ghost in churches all around there... Pentecostal churches of course... you... Oneness Pentecostal churches. I remember driving up to the Olympic auditorium, I'd been in it, it seated a little over 6,000, but driving up to it, that night, and it was so packed there were lines outside trying to get in there. Many of these other groups had functions going, but there wasn't lines out there. As a matter of fact, in 10 days of activities there, 1400 received the baptism of the Holy Ghost in our meetings.. OUR meetings. Because we preach! And I doubt the whole bunch of them had a hundred receive the Holy Ghost in all of their meetings, because they don't preach it as part of the plan! "If you need a little extra 'boost', get the Holy Ghost." But Jesus said, "Ye SHALL receive power" As a matter of fact, everyone that was in the upper room was speaking in other tongues... EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM! Nobody was missed! This is a gift! And we'd better hold on to it as a gift every day of our lives and thank God for this wonderful gift of the Holy Ghost. Thank God for the revelation of who God really is! How many of you know that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, and beside Him there is no other! This is the gift of God!

I find folks all over that want to be involved in some kind of a ministry, but I remind you that you have no ministry aside from the Holy Ghost."

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We have two examples in scripture where there are folks who are saved but do not speak in tongues.

Really, brother?

Please show us those two examples you're speaking of.
(I suspect you're referring to the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Phillipian jailer, but I'll try not to jump the gun too much here.)

Show us please, where it says they did not speak in tongues, since that's the conclusion you've arrived at.

Keep in mind of course, that just because it doesn't say they spoke in tongues does not mean we should conclude that they didn't speak in tongues.

Looking forward to your response, Jermyn.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Really, brother?

Please show us those two examples you're speaking of.
(I suspect you're referring to the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Phillipian jailer, but I'll try not to jump the gun too much here.)

Show us please, where it says they did not speak in tongues, since that's the conclusion you've arrived at.

Keep in mind of course, that just because it doesn't say they spoke in tongues does not mean we should conclude that they didn't speak in tongues.

Looking forward to your response, Jermyn.

I'm not Jermyn, but I will add my two cents worth.

For a people who pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when it's silent" this is not a very strong argument.

Why would the writers of the scripture deem in necessary to specify in some cases that they "Spoke with other tongues" and yet not feel it necessary in others?

We can all assume, but the problem with assumptions is that they are just that - assumptions.

Is it possible that in some cases when folks were baptized with the HG they did speak with tongues, and in other cases they didn't?

Its absolutely possible, and so if you ASSUME that everyone who was baptized with the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues because it was mentioned in SOME passages, the assumption that sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't is just as strong and plausible.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The Holy Ghost is no more important than repentance and baptism. Why do we treat it as the little magic blue pill?

What wasn't mentioned is the attrition rate of churches who emphasize a tongue talking experience over an experience of repentance.

are there really churches that teach that? guess it would not surprise me but I have not heard it so it kinda catches me off guard.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I'm not Jermyn, but I will add my two cents worth.

For a people who pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when it's silent" this is not a very strong argument.

Why would the writers of the scripture deem in necessary to specify in some cases that they "Spoke with other tongues" and yet not feel it necessary in others?

We can all assume, but the problem with assumptions is that they are just that - assumptions.

Is it possible that in some cases when folks were baptized with the HG they did speak with tongues, and in other cases they didn't?

Its absolutely possible, and so if you ASSUME that everyone who was baptized with the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues because it was mentioned in SOME passages, the assumption that sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't is just as strong and plausible.

But MP isn't it also an ASSUMPTION that not all received it the same way?
I would like to see what scriptures are being referred to that they say they didn't speak in other tongues.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

But MP isn't it also an ASSUMPTION that not all received it the same way?
I would like to see what scriptures are being referred to that they say they didn't speak in other tongues.

The scripture doesn't say they DIDN'T speak with tongues, it just doesn't say they DID.

My question to TR was that it's just as reasonable of an assumption to believe that some received the HG without speaking in unknown tongues as it is to assume that EVERYONE speaks with tongues just because it's specificaly mentioned in some passages.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I'm not Jermyn, but I will add my two cents worth.

For a people who pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when it's silent" this is not a very strong argument.

Why would the writers of the scripture deem in necessary to specify in some cases that they "Spoke with other tongues" and yet not feel it necessary in others?

We can all assume, but the problem with assumptions is that they are just that - assumptions.

Is it possible that in some cases when folks were baptized with the HG they did speak with tongues, and in other cases they didn't?

Its absolutely possible, and so if you ASSUME that everyone who was baptized with the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues because it was mentioned in SOME passages, the assumption that sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't is just as strong and plausible.

Ah, but what you just did was assume. You assumed it is possible. And this assumes that where Luke did not mention it then it must not have happened.

The day of Pentecost is obvious. The Gentiles are also obvious. Why the disciples of John I don't know...except maybe to show after all those many years people were still receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

are there really churches that teach that? guess it would not surprise me but I have not heard it so it kinda catches me off guard.

I think it can be easy to fall into when we drag people to the alter to pray them through without them having that repentance experience first.