What does having the Holy Spirit mean?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

LOL, I made the same mental note. I hope it sticks and I don't have to come back to this thread to remind myself.

I've tried to explain this concept in toooo many words before.....as in a prior post in this thread where neither Lydia nor the Philippian jailer are said to receive the Spirit upon their conversions. It doesn't mean they weren't filled with the Spirit nor does it not mean they didn't speak in tongues. I'm sure Paul was consistent in preaching the gospel everywhere he went.

Yes but he never mentions speaking in tongues much. A lot of emphasis though on forgiveness, repentance and baptism. Interesting.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'd like to read a post that made an impact on you!

I haven't even touched on scriptures that point to the new birth as water and Spirit baptisms. I don't believe I've heard a sound explanation of the Bible which explains the new birth as other than the baptisms found in Acts 2:38 and Hebrews 6:1-2.

I haven't yet heard a *3 steps to salvation* argument that is rock solid or water tight enough to persuade me that a person hasn't been regenerated spiritually before they speak in tongues.

As I said earlier there are questions on both sides of the issue that can't be answered conclusively enough to convince me .... and I have my own salvation experience. I know what happened to me. I know the relationship I had with God long prior to me speaking in tongues. I know I was His child and He was my Father.

That event took place when I was 6 years old. The conviction of the Holy Ghost hit me like a flash out of the blue! Repentance on my knees a few moments later with my mom at my side .... pouring out my heart to God and to my mom ..... understanding of sin ....... understanding of my need of a Savior...... resulted in me turning my life over to God and my relationship with Him began that evening. I was forever changed! And after that my heart and my mind and my soul belonged to Him.

I didn't receive my own personal Pentecost and spoke in tongues until I was 15. Not because I hadn't asked and prayed and sought and tarried for it hard enough or long enough. LOL. For some reason (fear mostly of it being "me" and not the Holy Ghost) I just had a hard time letting go and surrendering to that degree.

[Felicity]

I received the Holy Ghost (baptism) alone on my knees in a pew .... after a youth meeting in my own home church. It happened quietly. Nobody was praying with me.

My spiritual life went to a whole new level after that night. My prayer life increased and deepened. I began to pray intercessorily, the gifts began to operate in my life a little later, I had such a burden for the lost and such a thirst and desire for God and the things of God.

I was involved in everything that went on in my church including prayer, and I never missed anything that was going on --- fellowship meetings, campmeetings, conferences, whatever. I was there.

The Holy Ghost did for me what it's supposed to do. It made me more useful in His kingdom and in His service. I didn't just sit back on my laurels........ NOW I have the Holy Ghost. Now I'm ready for heaven. Now I don't have to be hitting the altar anymore --- thank GOD! --- I finally got it!

That wasn't how I felt at all, but in my experience and what I have seen over many years now this is what happens to a lot of people when the Holy Ghost is made a ....... you GOT to get the Holy Ghost because you're damned if you don't ..... requirement.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

By your logic, do we know if any repented?

On the Day of Pentecost we know that the 3000 repented because Peter told them to repent and be baptized and he would not have baptized them had they not repented. However, Peter never told the 3000 they had to speak with other tongues. Did he???

Cornelius didn't need to repent because he was already a believer in a right relationship with God and very apparently hungry for a deeper spiritual relationship.

In Acts 8 those who believed the gospel and were baptized would have obviously repented or Philip wouldn't have baptized them. Of course, repentance is a change of mind, which in order for one to believe, must happen as a result of the Spirit at work in a person's life. However, neither Philip, Peter or John instructed these believers that they would or that they must speak with other tongues. Did they????

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

Consequently, I would not be comfortable putting too much stock in the lack of detail about larger groups.

Still though.....considering what all had happened that day with thousands being added to the church, it's strange there wasn't more detail in regards to the specifics of people receiving the Holy Ghost with tongues evidence.

Paul also never referred to his own personal Pentecost ..... in all the detail he presented when on the witness stand to Festus or Agrippa......no mention of it at all.

In fact none of the Apostles gave it much attention except where Paul provided teaching and guidelines for tongues usage when he wrote to the Corinthians.

Like I said earlier we do not downplay Pentecost. My husband has prayed scores of men, women, and children through to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I was praying with a lady a couple Sundays ago who received. We believe it.

My issue is with saying a person hasn't become a child of the Father before they've spoken in tongues.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

On the Day of Pentecost we know that the 3000 repented because Peter told them to repent and be baptized and he would not have baptized them had they not repented. However, Peter never told the 3000 they had to speak with other tongues. Did he???

Cornelius didn't need to repent because he was already a believer in a right relationship with God and very apparently hungry for a deeper spiritual relationship.

In Acts 8 those who believed the gospel and were baptized would have obviously repented or Philip wouldn't have baptized them. Of course, repentance is a change of mind, which in order for one to believe, must happen as a result of the Spirit at work in a person's life. However, neither Philip, Peter or John instructed these believers that they would or that they must speak with other tongues. Did they????

An yet, the Scripture doesn't record Stephen telling the Eunuch anything about repentance before baptism nor does Acts record Paul rececieving the Holy Ghost. I don't see that one can fairly prove that something did not happen by what wasn't said in these instances and others put forth.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

An yet, the Scripture doesn't record Stephen telling the Eunuch anything about repentance before baptism nor does Acts record Paul rececieving the Holy Ghost. I don't see that one can fairly prove that something did not happen by what wasn't said in these instances and others put forth.

Right. You can't formulate a doctrine on what Scripture does NOT say. I totally agree.

And that's the problem with the *3 steps to salvation* doctrine. Nowhere were people expressly commanded to receive the Pentecostal experience i.e. speaking in tongues to be spiritually regenerated i.e. born again.

"Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sin in the name of Jesus and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For this PROMISE is unto you and to your children and to them that are afar off - to as many as the Lord your God shall call."

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Still though.....considering what all had happened that day with thousands being added to the church, it's strange there wasn't more detail in regards to the specifics of people receiving the Holy Ghost with tongues evidence.

Paul also never referred to his own personal Pentecost ..... in all the detail he presented when on the witness stand to Festus or Agrippa......no mention of it at all.

In fact none of the Apostles gave it much attention except where Paul provided teaching and guidelines for tongues usage when he wrote to the Corinthians.

Paul wrote and spoke audience shaped messages. It is not surprising that he didn't lay everything on the table all at once, with each group he spoke to. However, when he did speak to those who knew about speaking in tongues; he said he did it more than all of them.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

Paul wrote and spoke audience shaped messages. It is not surprising that he didn't lay everything on the table all at once, with each group he spoke to. However, when he did speak to those who knew about speaking in tongues; he said he did it more than all of them.

With due respect .... that's a very poor weak argument sis.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Right. You can't formulate a doctrine on what Scripture does NOT say. I totally agree.

And that's the problem with the *3 steps to salvation* doctrine. Nowhere were people expressly commanded to receive the Pentecostal experience i.e. speaking in tongues to be spiritually regenerated i.e. born again.

"Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sin in the name of Jesus and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For this PROMISE is unto you and to your children and to them that are afar off - to as many as the Lord your God shall call.

We weren't told to dip in water either but saw what those that knew what they were talking about did.