Second Work of Grace?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I appreciate much of what the AOG says on these issues, though definitely finding disagreement. Hoovie, what is surprising here? This is pretty reflective of the AOG beliefs for at least 30-40 yrs or more. Not sure if it has ever changed.

They believe Spirit baptism is distinct from spirit indwelling. They are long-time proponents of tongues as initial evidence. THis is why Gordon Fee's recent book God's Empowering Presence was such a big deal -- he was one of the first to challenge that idea, and challenge it very gracefully.

They believe the baptism of the Spirit is an empowerment for mission and also part of the believer's gift to the church. I also believe that. I'm not with them on the exclusivity of tongues as initial evidence, and since they don't celebrate it synonymously with salvation, it's not spit into people's ears either.

I would like to discuss the theory that there is a difference between Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism, or what some have termed "second work of grace".

The question for this thread is:

How does one know they received the Holy Ghost if not by tongues?

I lean hard towards the "Second work of grace" doctrine, but am in the process of studying it out. I don't have a good defense of my position yet, but I have arrived at the point that I cannot with good conscience say that I believe the Bible teaches that if someone doesn't/hasn't spoken in tongues they are lost. Plainly speaking, I do not belive the initial evidence doctrine is accurate.

However, some questions I've been dealing with are 1)Acts 8 "If the Holy Ghost comes at repentance or baptism, why didn't the Samriatans have it having experienced both. The same argument can be made from Acts 19, so I don't think the defense "because they were Samaritians" holds any weight.

2)As a pentecostal asked me, and then a couple days later a baptist asked basically the same question. "Do we receive the HG [at faith/conversion, but not with tongues] and then recieve the HG a second time, or in a greater measure [baptism of the Spirit, accompanied with tongues]?"

I'd like to dig into this really deep, but I don't really know where to start, so I'd like to get some perspectives from those who have dealt with these questions, to maybe get some good study leads.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I would like to discuss the theory that there is a difference between Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism, or what some have termed "second work of grace".

The question for this thread is:

How does one know they received the Holy Ghost if not by tongues?

I lean hard towards the "Second work of grace" doctrine, but am in the process of studying it out. I don't have a good defense of my position yet, but I have arrived at the point that I cannot with good conscience say that I believe the Bible teaches that if someone doesn't/hasn't spoken in tongues they are lost. Plainly speaking, I do not belive the initial evidence doctrine is accurate.

However, some questions I've been dealing with are 1)Acts 8 "If the Holy Ghost comes at repentance or baptism, why didn't the Samriatans have it having experienced both. The same argument can be made from Acts 19, so I don't think the defense "because they were Samaritians" holds any weight.

2)As a pentecostal asked me, and then a couple days later a baptist asked basically the same question. "Do we receive the HG [at faith/conversion, but not with tongues] and then recieve the HG a second time, or in a greater measure [baptism of the Spirit, accompanied with tongues]?"

I'd like to dig into this really deep, but I don't really know where to start, so I'd like to get some perspectives from those who have dealt with these questions, to maybe get some good study leads.

Adino and Pel had great contributions on the prior thread called "Salvation and the Spirit." Recommend you check that out.

Not all who believe in baptism of the Spirit post-conversion would refer to it as a "second work of grace."

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I would like to discuss the theory that there is a difference between Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism, or what some have termed "second work of grace".

The question for this thread is:

How does one know they received the Holy Ghost if not by tongues?

I lean hard towards the "Second work of grace" doctrine, but am in the process of studying it out. I don't have a good defense of my position yet, but I have arrived at the point that I cannot with good conscience say that I believe the Bible teaches that if someone doesn't/hasn't spoken in tongues they are lost. Plainly speaking, I do not belive the initial evidence doctrine is accurate.

However, some questions I've been dealing with are 1)Acts 8 "If the Holy Ghost comes at repentance or baptism, why didn't the Samriatans have it having experienced both. The same argument can be made from Acts 19, so I don't think the defense "because they were Samaritians" holds any weight.

2)As a pentecostal asked me, and then a couple days later a baptist asked basically the same question. "Do we receive the HG [at faith/conversion, but not with tongues] and then recieve the HG a second time, or in a greater measure [baptism of the Spirit, accompanied with tongues]?"

I'd like to dig into this really deep, but I don't really know where to start, so I'd like to get some perspectives from those who have dealt with these questions, to maybe get some good study leads.

I've been studying this subject lately as well, and have been dealing with the same questions. Thanks for bringing this topic up.

[Jeffrey]

Great discussion we had here. But I wouldn't mind doing it again too. I was sorting through the same questions and study when I posted this thread:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=27225

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Great discussion we had here. But I wouldn't mind doing it again too. I was sorting through the same questions and study when I posted this thread:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=27225

Thanks Jeffrey...will check out that thread as well.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I would like to discuss the theory that there is a difference between Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism, or what some have termed "second work of grace".

The question for this thread is:

How does one know they received the Holy Ghost if not by tongues?

I lean hard towards the "Second work of grace" doctrine, but am in the process of studying it out. I don't have a good defense of my position yet, but I have arrived at the point that I cannot with good conscience say that I believe the Bible teaches that if someone doesn't/hasn't spoken in tongues they are lost. Plainly speaking, I do not belive the initial evidence doctrine is accurate.

However, some questions I've been dealing with are 1)Acts 8 "If the Holy Ghost comes at repentance or baptism, why didn't the Samriatans have it having experienced both. The same argument can be made from Acts 19, so I don't think the defense "because they were Samaritians" holds any weight.

2)As a pentecostal asked me, and then a couple days later a baptist asked basically the same question. "Do we receive the HG [at faith/conversion, but not with tongues] and then recieve the HG a second time, or in a greater measure [baptism of the Spirit, accompanied with tongues]?"

I'd like to dig into this really deep, but I don't really know where to start, so I'd like to get some perspectives from those who have dealt with these questions, to maybe get some good study leads.

Good thought and good question. In my personal life my being filled with the spirit and speaking in tongues (which I was taught were the samething) never settled well. I was always mountains and valleys spiritually. I believe that I did speak in tongues after I accepted Christ when I was younger, but honestly I have felt and still feel that my accepting when I was younger was the more spiritually intense thing. Just like if I were to walk away from God and come back to Him that repenting and entering into convenant with Him again would feel better in my soul than just speaking in tongues (which also feels amazing). Tongues was NOT and is NOT, IMO, the life changing thing that we have been taught. Tongues doesn't cause someone to change their lifestyle and walk in a new direction, but the decision to follow Christ and deny the flesh and the works of the flesh is what causes the actual change that is where IMO the spirit enters. Because of this I believe that we are able to partake of the gifts and the personal gift of tongues.

[SteppingStone]

Faith is a gift of the Spirit. How can one even have faith without the Spirit? It's really that simple. Is it just a measure? Pursuing the rest of the gifts is tapping into that Spirit and filling up the cup.

Is it safe to say that people who don't believe in God don't have faith and that they are dead spiritually? Look into their eyes, it's clearly obvious...

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Faith is a gift of the Spirit. How can one even have faith without the Spirit? It's really that simple. Is it just a measure? Pursuing the rest of the gifts is tapping into that Spirit and filling up the cup.

Is it safe to say that people who don't believe in God don't have faith and that they are dead spiritually? Look into their eyes, it's clearly obvious...

Oh I completely disagree with you. Ever man is given a measure of faith no matter if it faith to believe in God or faith used to NOT believe in Him. One can have faith before the spirit because one must HAVE faith to receive the spirit. Also, the gift of faith is not simply being able to have faith. It is a gift to be able to increase faith not to start faith. Faith is in everyone a person with a gift of faith has the ablility to help others faith(and their own too) increase.

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Oh I completely disagree with you. Ever man is given a measure of faith no matter if it faith to believe in God or faith used to NOT believe in Him. One can have faith before the spirit because one must HAVE faith to receive the spirit. Also, the gift of faith is not simply being able to have faith. It is a gift to be able to increase faith not to start faith. Faith is in everyone a person with a gift of faith has the ablility to help others faith(and their own too) increase.

I say nay, faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, it is seed and it is life. Jesus said, "The Words that I speak are Spirit and they are life." Faith is planted, otherwise how can they believe on someone they've never heard of?
One can't have faith without the Spirit, it's a spiritual virtue, granted it's just a measure.

I agree that the initial measure of faith leads to deeper faith but it has to start somewhere..

Religion has made this more difficult than it really is and in the process has condemned many...

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

I say nay, faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, it is seed and it is life. Jesus said, "The Words that I speak are Spirit and they are life." Faith is planted, otherwise how can they believe on someone they've never heard of?
One can't have faith without the Spirit, it's a spiritual virtue, granted it's just a measure.

I agree that the initial measure of faith leads to deeper faith but it has to start somewhere..

Religion has made this more difficult than it really is and in the process has condemned many...

So, in your opinion, does a person not have faith until they speak in tongues?

If that is what you are saying, then the scriptures and I disagree with you.