Need the HG speaking in tongues to be saved - Page 9

deafdriscoll · #81 10-06-2011, 11:04 AM

You can only come to Christ by the Holy Spirit. It is done by a confession of christ.
Jesus never said we had to speak in tongues to go to heaven.
I believe paul said some will have the gifts and not go to heaven. hmmm....

mfblume · #82 10-06-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdriscoll

Jesus never said we had to speak in tongues to go to heaven.

Again, the big misnomer is that tongues allegedly save us. No. Spirit baptism is what we are seeking. Not tongues. Tongues is evidence, not cause.

I am leaving who and who does not go to heaven up to God. I do not go there. No one should. Jesus gave us the keys of the kingdom, but kept the keys of death and hell for Himself.

Quote:

I believe paul said some will have the gifts and not go to heaven. hmmm....

Amen!

livefortruth · #83 10-06-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah

without the HG seal of approval (tongues as evidence) the deal is off.
the HG seals the deal.

The problem is that in both Old and New Testament the Holy Spirit fills people and they do not speak in tongues as a result. There are instances where they do and instances where they don't. That aside, the idea of being "filled" with the Spirit usually does not refer to salvation. Everyone needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved but the concept of being "filled" in Old and New Testaments is usually similar to being "empowered" "enabled" etc.

livefortruth · #84 10-06-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

There is no mention of tongues as an evidence of spirit baptism in scripture. I see nothing mentioned by any apostle, teacher, or Jesus that mentions this. There are three or four instances where people receive the Holy Ghost and that happened over a very long period of years and years. Each time tongues was mentioned is was because this was a new people group who were receiving the spirit and each time there was an apostle present. Other than those instances, there is no other mention in scripture of tongues ever accompanying the Holy Spirit and many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were saved. If fact, the whole world changed and the gospel spread like wildfire and there is no mention of people seeking this evidence.

Amen, everyone should read this and take it seriously.

mfblume · #85 10-06-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livefortruth

The problem is that in both Old and New Testament the Holy Spirit fills people and they do not speak in tongues as a result. There are instances where they do and instances where they don't.

True, but there is a marked difference between Spirit infilling BEFORE the cross and afterwards. Atonement made the all important difference. They were filled beforehand to only do specific ministries, whereas since the cross it is for Christ's indwelling in us as being made temples of His Spirit.

Quote:

That aside, the idea of being "filled" with the Spirit usually does not refer to salvation. Everyone needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to be saved but the concept of being "filled" in Old and New Testaments is usually similar to being "empowered" "enabled" etc.

That is how the bible relates and associates it.

livefortruth · #86 10-06-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah

When you receive the Holy Ghost, you speak with tongues as evidence.
God begins to work in your life before you receive the HG.
You will repent as the Spirit of God convicts you.
But when you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is the earnest of our inheritance, you speak with tongues.

When Paul describes the "earnest" he never connects that with speaking in tongues. You are importing your theology into a verse by assuming that Paul already believes what you believe.

mfblume · #87 10-06-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livefortruth

Quote:

There is no mention of tongues as an evidence of spirit baptism in scripture. I see nothing mentioned by any apostle, teacher, or Jesus that mentions this. There are three or four instances where people receive the Holy Ghost and that happened over a very long period of years and years. Each time tongues was mentioned is was because this was a new people group who were receiving the spirit and each time there was an apostle present. Other than those instances, there is no other mention in scripture of tongues ever accompanying the Holy Spirit and many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people were saved. If fact, the whole world changed and the gospel spread like wildfire and there is no mention of people seeking this evidence.

[Amen, everyone should read this and take it seriously.

But one can also say that the reason tongues was never mentioned each and every time people were filled with the Spirit in Acts is because it would be redundant to repeat the same detail over and over again once the precedent was established. It could be that tongues were mentioned with Jews being Spirit filled and Gentiles being Spirit filled and disciples of John being Spirit filled because once that precedent is set, it is to be taken for granted it occurred in subsequent experiences.

To say it only occurred when the experience was first given to certain ethnic peoples, and never again, is no more substantial than saying it was meant to be understood it was given in every instance of any experience noted after it was established to be the norm when it first occurred with those groups.

And evidence is NOT SOUGHT. Again, that is a strawman argument. Even though today people SEEK the evidence, sometimes more than the gift itself, that is error on the seeker's part. We seek the Baptism of the Spirit, not the evidence of it.

livefortruth · #88 10-06-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

True, but there is a marked difference between Spirit infilling BEFORE the cross and afterwards. Atonement made the all important difference. They were filled beforehand to only do specific ministries, whereas since the cross it is for Christ's indwelling in us as being made temples of His Spirit.

That is how the bible relates and associates it.

I'm glad you agree that the term "filled with the Spirit" most often refers to empowering and enabling.

There are instances in Acts where being filled with the Spirit does not result in tongues. Some were "filled with the Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness" and Paul at one time was filled with the Spirit and caused someone to be blinded.

The idea of being filled is often associated with being able to do something that you could not otherwise do. So in reference to tongues I would say that someone is filled with the Spirit and they are enabled to do something the otherwise would not be able to do and in the case of Acts 2, 10, and 19, that thing is tongues.

Paul says "I would like it if you all spoke with tongues." Apparently the power exists through the Holy Spirit but not all have done it yet, not all will, and this does not prevent them from salvation.

I'm not sure your position but I am just expressing some of my thoughts.

livefortruth · #89 10-06-2011, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

But one can also say that the reason tongues was never mentioned each and every time people were filled with the Spirit in Acts is because it would be redundant to repeat the same detail over and over again once the precedent was established. It could be that tongues were mentioned with Jews being Spirit filled and Gentiles being Spirit filled and disciples of John being Spirit filled because once that precedent is set, it is to be taken for granted it occurred in subsequent experiences.

To say it only occurred when the experience was first given to certain ethnic peoples, and never again, is no more substantial than saying it was meant to be understood it was given in every instance of any experience noted after it was established to be the norm when it first occurred with those groups.

And evidence is NOT SOUGHT. Again, that is a strawman argument. Even though today people SEEK the evidence, sometimes more than the gift itself, that is error on the seeker's part. We seek the Baptism of the Spirit, not the evidence of it.

The minority of conversions speak in tongues in the book of Acts. It is a misnomer to say that Luke was avoiding redundancy because something can only be redundant if it is said over and over and over. Tongues is mentioned 3 times in Acts and there are a lot more than 3 conversions in the book of Acts.

mfblume · #90 10-06-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livefortruth

I'm glad you agree that the term "filled with the Spirit" most often refers to empowering and enabling.

There are instances in Acts where being filled with the Spirit does not result in tongues. Some were "filled with the Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness"

[

Yes, but these people in Acts 4 already had been filled in Acts 2.

Quote:

and Paul at one time was filled with the Spirit and caused someone to be blinded.

The idea of being filled is often associated with being able to do something that you could not otherwise do. So in reference to tongues I would say that someone is filled with the Spirit and they are enabled to do something the otherwise would not be able to do and in the case of Acts 2, 10, and 19, that thing is tongues.

Paul says "I would like it if you all spoke with tongues." Apparently the power exists through the Holy Spirit but not all have done it yet, not all will, and this does not prevent them from salvation.

I'm not sure your position but I am just expressing some of my thoughts.

I appreciate your words. They are well thought out. I may not fully agree, though. If Paul spoke of tongues for prayer in the manner in which he did, saying he willed all spoke with tongues, I think that implies it is meant for all. Why would Paul teach on prayer in tongues if only a select few could enjoy that? It is communion with God, after all! Is Paul saying only a select few enjoy THAT kind of communion with God? I think not.