A Hebrew or Greek NT?

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

However look at it this way. There are exactly ZERO places in Acts where someone received the Holy Ghost and did not speak in tongues. Or where it is stated they received and manifested some other gift. So if we want to learn anything about the Holy Spirit baptism that seems to be it.

i disagree we have many conversions with no mention of tongues. we also have a verse that stated that some spoke with tounges and some prophesied. lets just look to the teaching of Paul on the subject since luke was a disciple of Paul,

Paul describes them as Gift of the Spirit, that means it is something that is obtainable from the Spirit. Mark 16:16 says that is (A) sign. (not the only sign)
I also want to point out that even before the disciples was filled with the Spirit their names was already written in the book of Life according to Jesus.

They where told to wait for the power in jerusalem. They was not told wait for salvation in Jeruslaem

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by acerrak

while i understand where your comming from, i would suggest that you would not lean tword satanic. cause if its not then you would be basically calling the gift of the Spirit satanic, and as Jesus casted out a demon, people said he was doing it by the power of satan. Somethings we just need to let God handle.

Just my 2cents

yup. I believe tongues is a gift, and also
that many who may not have received the gift
fake it anyway; may not be exactly satanic.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by acerrak

i disagree we have many conversions with no mention of tongues. we also have a verse that stated that some spoke with tounges and some prophesied. lets just look to the teaching of Paul on the subject since luke was a disciple of Paul,

Paul describes them as Gift of the Spirit, that means it is something that is obtainable from the Spirit. Mark 16:16 says that is (A) sign. (not the only sign)
I also want to point out that even before the disciples was filled with the Spirit their names was already written in the book of Life according to Jesus.

They where told to wait for the power in jerusalem. They was not told wait for salvation in Jeruslaem

I understood Acts this way, also.

[Sam]

Quote from Sam:
So, based on the 3 or 4 times that speaking with tongues accompanies the HGB in the Book of Acts, some have come to the conclusion that speaking with tongues always accompanies the HGB and that is the basis for the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. Are these 3-4 instances enough to establish that doctrine? Each of us must decide for himself/herself.

Response by Michael:
However look at it this way. There are exactly ZERO places in Acts where someone received the Holy Ghost and did not speak in tongues. Or where it is stated they received and manifested some other gift. So if we want to learn anything about the Holy Spirit baptism that seems to be it.

My comment:
Some look at this as establishing a doctrine based on 2 or 3 witnesses

1. In Acts chapter 2 we find Jews receiving the HGB and it is recorded that they spoke with tongues. This would have been Pentecost Sunday May 28, AD 30 according to some folks' reckoning.

2. In Acts chapter 8 we find Samaritans receiving the HGB and it implies that they spoke with tongues. This was probably winter AD 31/32

3. In Acts chapter 9 we find that Paul received the HGB and while it does not say he spoke with tongues at the time we know that he claimed to speak with tongues more than the whole Corinthian Church. The traditional date for Paul's conversion is January 25, AD 32 and his baptism in the Spirit was 3 days later.

4. In Acts chapter 10 we find Gentiles receiving the HGB and it is recorded that they spoke with tongues. Date for this is considered AD 38

4. In Acts chapter 19 we find those Baptist disciples receiving the HGB and it is recorded that they spoke with tongues. This is considered to be October AD 53

So, from these "witnesses" we find different groups of people over a period of around 20 years receiving a spiritual outpouring, subsequent or connected to a conversion and water baptism experience.

Again, I ask, is this enough information to go on and say that all HGB experiences will be accompanied by or soon followed by speaking with tongues? And also, is this enough information to go on and say that all conversion experiences will include
1. salvation/justification/regeneration
2. water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
3. HGB and speaking with tongues

Some of us will say "yes" and some of us will say "no

Let every person be fully persuaded in his/her own mind

[Sam]

[QUOTE=acerrak;1164723
...I also want to point out that even before the disciples was filled with the Spirit their names was already written in the book of Life according to Jesus.

They where told to wait for the power in jerusalem. They was not told wait for salvation in Jeruslaem[/QUOTE]

careful there, you're starting to sound like us one-steppers

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Sam

careful there, you're starting to sound like us one-steppers

i have always been a one stepper, But i do also believe in water baptism. I do not treat water baptisdm as a work, To me the first step is the only step that matters, cause the step of faith in believing justifies the sinner, God also imputes rightousness because of believing. A true believer will get baptized. which i believe is by faith also.

The first initial step was the one that put you on the narrow path. everything else after that is a work of the Holy Spirit in you. sanctification, works etc.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by acerrak

i have always been a one stepper, But i do also believe in water baptism. I do not treat water baptisdm as a work, To me the first step is the only step that matters, cause the step of faith in believing justifies the sinner, God also imputes rightousness because of believing. A true believer will get baptized. which i believe is by faith also.

The first initial step was the one that put you on the narrow path. everything else after that is a work of the Holy Spirit in you. sanctification, works etc.

now that's a good way to explain it.

I think the brethren that hammered out the original fundamental doctrine statement in 1945 would agree

[bbyrd009]

Interesting to note the time span there, of 20 years or so;
it can be easy to assume all these occurrences happened within
a couple days or weeks of each other.