Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[Esaias]

Where did either Jesus or the apostles teach anything along the lines of receiving a half-measure of the Spirit, or that one is saved BEFORE receiving the Spirit, or that one can receive the Spirit as a separate experience from being filled with the Spirit, or anything like any of this?

I mean, KBTW, you are speaking in a manner that simply doesn't sound at all like the way the apostles spoke, or taught.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

You are so right! We cannot do anything apart from work on Calvary! We are drawn by the Lord to repentance, and upon repenting, we are baptized in obedience, and the Lord then is able to fill us with His spirit, with gifts, signs and wonders as He chooses. But in the end, all we have only comes from HIM! His mercy, His Blood, His Love, His Spirit are the only hope we have.

We can quibble over a lot of different things doctrinally, but the most important thing we need to remember is to do our best to not add to or take away anything in scripture, to the best of our abilities.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Even with the context, the words of Jesus still stand, and they hold as much weight as Acts 2:38.

Ok.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

And since Jesus did not mention the word spirit, fine. Signs and wonders mean whatever you want them to be?

They are the words of Jesus, they line up with the totality of scripture on the subject, and it agrees with Acts 2:38 too. So I am puzzled as to why you don't think Mark 16:16 is about salvation when it clearly states it is.

Ok.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

There were prophesying, glorifying God, rejoicing in the scriptures that were all quoted. I've never said that tongues was not the gifting God could choose, and indeed was, but there are also too many scriptures where tongues are not mentioned specifically.

You continue to confuse the gifts as described in 1 Cor with the initial evidence of tongues as described in Acts.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Further... there is not ONE scripture that specifically equates speaking in tongues equals or is the evidence of salvation.

You're distorting what I and others have posted on this. We are not saying that tongues = salvation. Salvation is through the repentance, water baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the HG. What we have said is that the initial evidence of a person receiving the HG is and has always been speaking in tongues. Tongues itself does not save you. It is merely the initial evidence of being filled with the HG, as shown in Acts.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Infilling of the HG is a gifting of the Lord that comes at or after salvation, which is what the apostles taught, and what I believe. Since there is no scripture that says you must speak in tongues as the evidence of salvation, I stand with the apostles there, and not with the typical OP stance.

"At or after salvation?" So a person who has died and been buried can live without a resurrection? Do the words of Jesus in John 3 mean anything? When Jesus said you "must be" born of the water AND the spirit, He really just meant, "you might be at some point receive an infilling of My spirit, perhaps at salvation or maybe not, I'll surprise you."

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

What does Jesus say? That's what I believe.

Obviously not, since you don't believe the HG is essential to salvation, directly contradicting John 3.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

A measure of the spirit of the Lord is present at repentance/baptism, and when the Lord deems the heart is ready to receive the full gifting of the spirit, it will be poured out and signs will follow them that believe, and this can happen at His choosing, it is His gift to give.

Again with this "salvation by installment plan." I don't read anywhere in the Bible where Jesus or the Disciples/Apostles preached this.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I don't doubt that Paul did speak in tongues at his conversion. He no doubt did then, and we know that later he did for sure as he spoke of it in 1 Cor. 12. But still, tongues is not mentioned there, much to your chagrin, lol. And in Acts 2:38, tongues are not mentioned either.

Why do you not doubt Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion? What makes you believe he did speak in tongues at his conversion?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So you are piecing things together, to make tongues necessary for salvation, simply because you do not have that one scripture that holds up your doctrine. You have to skip around, and piece scriptures together to make it work, lol. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I don't have to piece things together. The book of Acts is clear that the only evidence we read of the infilling of the HG was that they spoke in tongues.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So to reiterate, Acts 2:38 makes no mention of tongues - which you insist that tongues are essential to knowing one is filled with the HG. Yet you discount Mark 16:15-18 as a salvation plan given, when Jesus specifically says go and preach the gospel... how much plainer can you get that Jesus is telling them what the gospel and salvation entails? Plus, Mark 16 also mentions tongues, later of course, which is why you don't like it, because the new tongues is not part of the "you shall be saved" sentence.

When have I said I don't like Mark 16? I've said the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So, go ahead and find me that scripture to prop up your understanding that one must speak in tongues to be filled with the spirit, so that you can stand from the rooftops and shout to the world that "if you don't speak in tongues, you haven't been filled with the spirit, and you are not yet saved", without piecing scriptures together, of course.

You still have yet to prove that the evidence of receiving the HG was anything but speaking in tongues.

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by n david

You still have yet to prove that the evidence of receiving the HG was anything but speaking in tongues.

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

They only spoke in tongues? Read the passages again. There were those that magnified God and some that prophesied.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Saying as u did above, that "A measure of the spirit of the Lord is present at repentance/baptism,",
is not the same as saying the Spirit indwelt believers at repentance/bsptism.


Are u meaning both, or only the first?

where is/are the verses that in fact, say what you are saying, that a measure of Gods Spirit is given to, or indwells the believer at repentance? And where does that fit in w the Spirit given in Jn 7:39?


Maybe you're meaning acts 2:38 is speaking of a measure of the Spirit is given at rep and baptism, but not filled?

Seems to me one can't have it both ways, based on acts 2:38. If the spirit was given only as a measure at repentance and baptism as you say, then they would not have been filled with the Holy Ghost, but only got a measure.


Seems like adding in a measure, where scripture says nothing about a measure, complicates the simplicity of Jn 7:39 and acts 2:38.

IMO, scripture only speaks of a believer receiving His Spirit, as an infilling, not a measure and then an infilling...at least I cannot find that "measure" you speak of in the nt scriptures.


We do know that scripture says that Jesus was given the Spirit without measure, that's as close as I can get to what you're saying, but it's still not there.

Good morning James,

I appreciate you trying to understand what could be meant by a "measure of the spirit".

There are at least 5 mentions of people being filled with the HG BEFORE Pentecost, some example below:

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:


Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

I've given these examples before, and no one has addressed this mention of the HG filling a person BEFORE Pentecost. By these scriptures we know that the spirit of the Lord can indwell and move on a person's life as the Lord wills.

Further, we have this scripture:

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one can come to the Lord unless He is drawn. How is one drawn of the Lord but by His spirit?

And once one has repented/baptized why do we have so many accounts in Acts that say they were saved, without any mention of the HG filling? Here is one of them.

30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where did either Jesus or the apostles teach anything along the lines of receiving a half-measure of the Spirit, or that one is saved BEFORE receiving the Spirit, or that one can receive the Spirit as a separate experience from being filled with the Spirit, or anything like any of this?

I mean, KBTW, you are speaking in a manner that simply doesn't sound at all like the way the apostles spoke, or taught.

See my response above to Bro. James Glen.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

You continue to confuse the gifts as described in 1 Cor with the initial evidence of tongues as described in Acts.


You're distorting what I and others have posted on this. We are not saying that tongues = salvation. Salvation is through the repentance, water baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the HG. What we have said is that the initial evidence of a person receiving the HG is and has always been speaking in tongues. Tongues itself does not save you. It is merely the initial evidence of being filled with the HG, as shown in Acts.


"At or after salvation?" So a person who has died and been buried can live without a resurrection? Do the words of Jesus in John 3 mean anything? When Jesus said you "must be" born of the water AND the spirit, He really just meant, "you might be at some point receive an infilling of My spirit, perhaps at salvation or maybe not, I'll surprise you."


Obviously not, since you don't believe the HG is essential to salvation, directly contradicting John 3.


Again with this "salvation by installment plan." I don't read anywhere in the Bible where Jesus or the Disciples/Apostles preached this.


Why do you not doubt Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion? What makes you believe he did speak in tongues at his conversion?


I don't have to piece things together. The book of Acts is clear that the only evidence we read of the infilling of the HG was that they spoke in tongues.


When have I said I don't like Mark 16? I've said the exact opposite.


You still have yet to prove that the evidence of receiving the HG was anything but speaking in tongues.

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

I don't have time this morning to address all of your points, most of which I've already addressed in previous posts.

According to Mark 16:16 salvation consists of repentance/baptism. Acts 2:38 also confirms this. Upon salvation taking place at repentance/baptism, the spirit can be poured out as the Lord deems. Many accounts in Acts note the HG infilling with tongues. There is no record the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion. Many accounts reference salvation without any record of tongues.

So what we can conclude from this is that salvation takes place at repentance/baptism as Jesus explicitly said, and the infilling of the spirit takes place at whatever time the Lord deems a heart is ready to receive.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

They only spoke in tongues? Read the passages again. There were those that magnified God and some that prophesied.

.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I don't have time this morning to address all of your points, most of which I've already addressed in previous posts.

According to Mark 16:16 salvation consists of repentance/baptism. Acts 2:38 also confirms this. Upon salvation taking place at repentance/baptism, the spirit can be poured out as the Lord deems. Many accounts in Acts note the HG infilling with tongues. There is no record the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion. Many accounts reference salvation without any record of tongues.

So what we can conclude from this is that salvation takes place at repentance/baptism as Jesus explicitly said, and the infilling of the spirit takes place at whatever time the Lord deems a heart is ready to receive.

Sorry, I do not believe this. A person is dead without resurrection. One cannot be saved without the resurrection or the infilling of the HG. Jesus clearly said you MUST be born of the water AND the spirit. That is not a suggestion. That is not a "check with me later." That's not a "I may or may not give you My spirit at some point during your life." That is a commandment Jesus gave. I find it interesting that you would claim Mark 16 as salvific, but ignore Jesus' words of John 3.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

Sorry, I do not believe this. A person is dead without resurrection. One cannot be saved without the resurrection or the infilling of the HG. Jesus clearly said you MUST be born of the water AND the spirit. That is not a suggestion. That is not a "check with me later." That's not a "I may or may not give you My spirit at some point during your life." That is a commandment Jesus gave. I find it interesting that you would claim Mark 16 as salvific, but ignore Jesus' words of John 3.

If the infilling of the HG is a commandment, as you say... how do you command a gift to be given? Is not the Holy Ghost a gift? How can it be a commandment if it is a gift? A gift and a commandment are not compatible.

Does one command the Lord to give the HG gift?

In essence, the concept that the gift of HG infilling is a commandment of Jesus is an oxymoron statement. It is either one or the other. If it is a commandment, then there must be something we do, which then disqualifies it as a gift. A gift is something freely given. So which is it?