Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[n david]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I thought this was interesting:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/gen..._baptismhs.cfm

Speaking in tongues is the only phenomenon mentioned every time Scripture supplies details concerning the Baptism experience. Of the five instances in Acts which recount the experience of believers being baptized in the Spirit, three supply details. Speaking in tongues is the only one that occurs each time (Acts 2, 10, 19). In the Acts 10 account, tongues is specifically mentioned as proof that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues" (Acts 10:45, 46). The relationship between the phenomenon and the experience cannot be ignored.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

I never said anything about a certain time. All I posted is that the initial experience of tongues is not the same as the gift of tongues, and that Paul is not speaking about the initial evidence in 1 Cor 12. You're confusing the two.

Then how do you tell the difference? How is the "experience of tongues" (as you say) different somehow than the gift of tongues? By what measuring stick are we given to understand the difference?

Originally Posted by n david

This verse is used by those who try to claim people are saved by praying the sinner's prayer and "accepting Jesus." I'm not arguing Jesus' words, I understand the context.

Signs WILL follow them that believe. Repentance/baptism are salvational, and signs follow those that believe.

Originally Posted by n david

But you are by claiming God gives a "measure" or "part" at the beginning and more later on, whenever He decides. Perhaps it was different with you, but when I repented and was baptized, I received the full spirit of God as I spoke with tongues as He gave the utterance. He didn't just fill a small part of me, He filled me completely.

Praise God! As did I! I'm not saying that speaking with tongues shouldn't be, or can't be part of the experience. But what I am saying is that you received the fullness, or the filling up of the spirit. People that have repented/baptized are saved, but there is a fullness or a filling up of the spirit that awaits them. Sometimes it happens all at once. Sometimes there are giftings of the spirit without the evidence of tongues. Sometimes there are tongues first, and then baptism. The order doesn't seem to matter to the Lord, He chooses when the heart is ready to receive.

But I draw the line at the concept that tongues are a SIGN OF SALVATION. Not supported anywhere in scripture.

Because if you say that - when was Paul saved? The Bible does not mention him receiving tongues when Ananais laid hands on him. When was Paul saved then? It would seem at repentance/baptism.

Acts 9: 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Where does it say Paul spoke in tongues here?

Originally Posted by n david

You've got it backwards. The spirit doesn't come at tongues, tongues is the initial evidence of the spirit infilling.

Says what scripture? Where do we learn that Paul spoke in tongues when the spirit filled him? See passage above.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I thought this was interesting:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/gen..._baptismhs.cfm

Speaking in tongues is the only phenomenon mentioned every time Scripture supplies details concerning the Baptism experience. Of the five instances in Acts which recount the experience of believers being baptized in the Spirit, three supply details. Speaking in tongues is the only one that occurs each time (Acts 2, 10, 19). In the Acts 10 account, tongues is specifically mentioned as proof that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues" (Acts 10:45, 46). The relationship between the phenomenon and the experience cannot be ignored.

There is no doubt that tongues were the most common gifting of the HG. However, there are many times where the tongues are not mentioned too, where people praised God, prophesied, and were filled with joy.

A question for you: Where was it recorded that Paul spoke in tongues at the infilling of the spirit?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

There is no doubt that tongues were the most common gifting of the HG. However, there are many times where the tongues are not mentioned too, where people praised God, prophesied, and were filled with joy.

A question for you: Where was it recorded that Paul spoke in tongues at the infilling of the spirit?

It is evident that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) and spoke in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18).

[Amanah]

KBTW, do you feel like you received the HG before you spoke with tongues, and if so what do you think the evidence was?

For me, I receive the HG when I was a kid, and later received the gift of tongues, the gift of tongues was very different, as I knew that it was a message for the Church and there was an interpretation.

I have prayed with many at the altar to receive the HG as evidenced by tongues and there was not the same feeling of needing an interpretation.

I have seen the Gift of Tongues in operation many times and I knew an interpretation was coming.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Then how do you tell the difference? How is the "experience of tongues" (as you say) different somehow than the gift of tongues? By what measuring stick are we given to understand the difference?

Again, the gift of tongues Paul is speaking of is not the initial evidence a person receives when filled with the HG. How do we know the difference? Because if you read what Paul is writing concerning the gift of tongues, you would read that the gift of tongues requires there to be two: a giver of the tongue and an interpreter. Paul also clearly states the difference in 1Cor 14 by stating tongues (stammering lips - Isaiah 28:11) are for a sign for unbelievers, but the gift of tongues are for believers only and must be accompanied by interpretation.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Signs WILL follow them that believe. Repentance/baptism are salvational, and signs follow those that believe.

You accept the blood and the water, but deny the Spirit as salvific? The blood, water and spirit are together salvific. How can signs follow without the spirit infilling? If a person believes only, but has no spirit, how do signs follow?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Praise God! As did I! I'm not saying that speaking with tongues shouldn't be, or can't be part of the experience. But what I am saying is that you received the fullness, or the filling up of the spirit. People that have repented/baptized are saved, but there is a fullness or a filling up of the spirit that awaits them. Sometimes it happens all at once. Sometimes there are giftings of the spirit without the evidence of tongues. Sometimes there are tongues first, and then baptism. The order doesn't seem to matter to the Lord, He chooses when the heart is ready to receive.

Again, one cannot be saved without the spirit. A person can apply the blood, be washed in water and be nothing more than a clean corpse. You must have the infilling of the spirit to complete salvation. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe a person is saved unless/until they have been filled with the spirit, the evidence of which is speaking in tongues.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

But I draw the line at the concept that tongues are a SIGN OF SALVATION. Not supported anywhere in scripture.

I disagree. If through the blood, water and spirit is how a person is saved, then tongues are a sign.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Because if you say that - when was Paul saved? The Bible does not mention him receiving tongues when Ananais laid hands on him. When was Paul saved then? It would seem at repentance/baptism.

Acts 9: 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Where does it say Paul spoke in tongues here?

So because Acts 9 doesn't specifically state Paul spake in tongues, you decide it's not important or necessary, even though Acts 1, 2, 10 and 19 all describe those who received the HG as speaking in tongues?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Amanah

It is evident that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) and spoke in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18).

In Acts 9:17, there is no mention of tongues, although yes, in 1 Cor. Paul says he does speak in tongues. But the scriptural account of his conversion does not specifically say he spoke in tongues in Acts 9.

This doesn't mean that I don't think Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion, I believe he most likely did! But the scripture doesn't reference it, along with quite a few other examples.

So the measuring stick of "speaking in tongues = salvation" cannot be upheld by just experiences spoken of in Acts. There must be more to it.

Mark 16:16-18 is the most complete, straightforward and explicit example we have of what salvation includes:

Mark 16:16-18 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

... and tongues is not part of the two things necessary for salvation, but simply one of the signs that follow. It was Jesus himself who said these words.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Amanah

KBTW, do you feel like you received the HG before you spoke with tongues, and if so what do you think the evidence was?

For me, I receive the HG when I was a kid, and later received the gift of tongues, the gift of tongues was very different, as I knew that it was a message for the Church and there was an interpretation.

I have prayed with many at the altar to receive the HG as evidenced by tongues and there was not the same feeling of needing an interpretation.

I have seen the Gift of Tongues in operation many times and I knew an interpretation was coming.

I grew up in OP, and believed that if I didn't speak in tongues, I wasn't saved. I sought the tongues, and received. I asked, and I received.

And I don't deny that there are diversities of tongues, how could I? 1 Cor. 12 explicitly says there are diversities of tongues.

What I am saying is that using "speaking in tongues" as a measuring stick to gauge if one is saved or not, is where the problem lies.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

Again, the gift of tongues Paul is speaking of is not the initial evidence a person receives when filled with the HG. How do we know the difference? Because if you read what Paul is writing concerning the gift of tongues, you would read that the gift of tongues requires there to be two: a giver of the tongue and an interpreter. Paul also clearly states the difference in 1Cor 14 by stating tongues (stammering lips - Isaiah 28:11) are for a sign for unbelievers, but the gift of tongues are for believers only and must be accompanied by interpretation.

There are diversities of tongues, I do not argue that in the least.

Originally Posted by n david

You accept the blood and the water, but deny the Spirit as salvific? The blood, water and spirit are together salvific. How can signs follow without the spirit infilling? If a person believes only, but has no spirit, how do signs follow?

No, I am not denying the spirit, not at all. The spirit of the Lord has to be present all throughout the conversion experience, otherwise how could we be drawn to repentance, and see our need for baptism? But the fullness of the spirit is available to us upon obedience to repentance/baptism with SIGNS following.

Originally Posted by n david

Again, one cannot be saved without the spirit. A person can apply the blood, be washed in water and be nothing more than a clean corpse. You must have the infilling of the spirit to complete salvation. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe a person is saved unless/until they have been filled with the spirit, the evidence of which is speaking in tongues.

I agree one cannot be saved without the spirit. The spirit has to be present for repentance/baptism to take place effectively. But the filling up of the spirit comes with signs and giftings following the initial act of obedience in repentance/baptism.

Originally Posted by n david

I disagree. If through the blood, water and spirit is how a person is saved, then tongues are a sign.

Do you have scripture for that? Show me scripture then where if you do not speak in tongues, you are not saved.

Originally Posted by n david

So because Acts 9 doesn't specifically state Paul spake in tongues, you decide it's not important or necessary, even though Acts 1, 2, 10 and 19 all describe those who received the HG as speaking in tongues?

Oh, I don't doubt that Paul did speak in tongues, he most likely did. But the scriptural account just doesn't say he did. I'm not adding or taking anything away from what we can read.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Speaking in tongues and salvation is the very reason this thread is continuing on in this way, because that is really the main issue and reason tongues are such a hot subject. Are they, or are they not necessary for salvation? Can you answer that question?

The answer is no, tongues are not necessary for salvation. Which is what I and many others have been saying all along. What we are saying, is that when you receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, you will speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. It's not a requirement for salvation, it's a simple fact.

Let me try a different tact, and phrase it slightly differently.

When you eat your fill, you will be full.

Being full isn't a requirement of eating your fill, it's simply a fact that when you do eat your fill you'll be full.

There is absolutely no accounts in the Bible, where we're explicitly told someone did *NOT* speak in tongues after the infilling. Yes, there are accounts where it's not mentioned or recorded, but that doesn't automatically mean that it didn't occur. Yet every time that evidence is recorded of the infilling, the one consistent bit of proof is speaking in tongues.