Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
Are you saying that people can be partially filled with the Holy Ghost?
|
See my post above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
I don't tell people they have the Holy Ghost nor do I tell them they do not. I think the thing to do is to ask someone how they know they have the Holy Ghost. If they say because they believe, (which is the common response) then where is any scriptural basis for believing to be equivalent to the Holy Ghost baptism. Tongues is the only sign of Spirit baptism recorded in the Bible.
|
Again, see my post above. There is a measure of the spirit comes into the heart at repentance and baptism. It has to, otherwise, how could repentance and baptism effect a change in the life of one believing? I think it's wonderful that you don't tell people when they have received. Tell them to seek the fullness of the spirit of the Lord in their lives, and let the Lord give them the gifts of the spirit as He chooses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
Someone made a statement earlier that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost:
|
It was a measure of the spirit that he no doubt received. The fullness of the spirit of the Lord working effectively came at Pentecost.
Think of this - how were all the great miracles and faith accomplished throughout the OT? How could Isaiah say it was "fire shut up in my bones", if he did not have the spirit of the Lord moving within his heart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
I think that the experience that John had was somehow different then what they experienced at Pentecost, because here the scripture says the Spirit had not yet been given.
|
No, it was the same spirit. The spirit of the Lord does not change! But it was a measure of the spirit. Otherwise, how did Isaiah feel "fire shut up in my bones"? Does the spirit of the Lord change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
I know the scripture speaks of John being filled with the Holy Ghost, but that was prior to Jesus fulfillment of all OT prophecy. I know people on here like to tear the word dispensation apart so I will use better terms. We are under a new covenant a better covenant. In the new covenant we are sealed by the Holy Ghost (circumcision of the heart). If someone wants to go through life believing they have the Holy Ghost with no scriptural authority to establish the fact then let them do it. I myself have an expectation to see someone speaking in a language foreign to their understanding.
One of the prerequisites for the first 7 deacons in the book of Acts was that they must be full of the Holy Ghost. How do you think they determined they were full of the Holy Ghost? Think what you want, but I am betting they had heard them speak with tongues.
|
I don't doubt that they did speak with tongues, but the account does not say that. You are assigning the HG as equivocal with tongues, which scripture does not do.
Tongues were a sign that FOLLOWED, but the initial giving of the spirit had to come with obedience at repentance/baptism, and then the various gifts of the spirit were poured out as the Lord willed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
I have never heard a Pentecostal preach that you are saved by tongues, but only that tongues give witness to the Holy Ghost baptism.
|
But what you are just saying is a contradiction, don't you see it? Tell someone, well you need to seek the gift of tongues, so you can have the witness of the spirit to be saved, is saying - you are not saved until you speak with the evidence of tongues, you are just twisting words, but the meaning is clear.