The gift of the Holy Spirit

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

My point is that there is a sign. No one in the book of Acts was silently filled with the Spirit.


The only signs listed in the book of Acts when believers actually were filled with the Spirit were speaking with other tongues and prophecy. And prophecy was never mentioned alone, by itself as a sign after the initial outpouring on Pentecost although prophecy was a sign of the Spirit infilling in the OT and the gospels.

No one in the book of Acts was filled with the Spirit without an apostle present either. Does that imply that people can't be filled with the Spirit without an apostle being present?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

My point is that there is a sign. No one in the book of Acts was silently filled with the Spirit.

Paul is not described as "speaking in tongues" when he was "filled with the Holy Ghost." Acts 9:17-19.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The only signs listed in the book of Acts when believers actually were filled with the Spirit were speaking with other tongues and prophecy. And prophecy was never mentioned alone, by itself as a sign after the initial outpouring on Pentecost although prophecy was a sign of the Spirit infilling in the OT and the gospels.

How can we determine with absolute certainty that the phenomena we see today and call "speaking in tongues" is the same phenomena that the First Century disciples experienced? The description and the detailed accounts don't match up.

(I think we've been here before). Acts 2:4-17, has never been reproduced at any church gathering I have ever attended. I have never seen it occur in any kind of setting. Whenever I've asked about the obvious discontinuity I am met with anger and hostility.

If we are going to make "speaking in tongues" a requirement for the New Birth and salvation, then we really should line up our own experiences with that described in the Bible.

[MonoTheist]

I think we should just do our part...repent and be baptized in Jesus name...we are PROMISED the Holy Ghost afterwards if we do..How and when is up to God!..all we know it is a promise

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MonoTheist

I think we should just do our part...repent and be baptized in Jesus name...we are PROMISED the Holy Ghost afterwards if we do..How and when is up to God!..all we know it is a promise

Aren't we suppose to ASK God for the Holy Spirit?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

No one in the book of Acts was filled with the Spirit without an apostle present either. Does that imply that people can't be filled with the Spirit without an apostle being present?

How do you know that Ananias was an apostle? Acts 9

One reason we see believers receiving the Holy Spirit by the apostles in Acts is because the book is about the acts of the apostles. But nowhere is it even implied that an apostle must be present for believers to receive the Holy Spirit. Even in Acts 8, we see it was expected that the Samaritans would receive the Holy Spirit and when they didn't, then the apostles were called to come and pray for them.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Paul is not described as "speaking in tongues" when he was "filled with the Holy Ghost." Acts 9:17-19.

Luke doesn't describe Paul receiving the Holy Spirit. Ananias states that praying for Paul to receive his sight and to receive the Holy Spirit is the reason he was sent to Paul. We read that Paul did receive his sight, "immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith" but we are not told anything about his receiving the Holy Spirit though we assume that Paul did receive the Spirit at that time. I don't think we can automatically reason that because Luke didn't record a visible evidence of Paul receiving the Spirit that it didn't happen. Paul seemed to believe that some type of affirmation that a believer would accompany the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit for in Acts 19 he asks the disciples of John if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. If it was commonly held that there was no visible manifestation of some sort when believers receive the Spirit then this question is redundant.

How can we determine with absolute certainty that the phenomena we see t

oday and call "speaking in tongues" is the same phenomena that the First Century disciples experienced? The description and the detailed accounts don't match up.

That's your opinion. I think they line up. The common thread in the written accounts of specific instances of believers receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking with other tongues.

(I think we've been here before). Acts 2:4-17, has never been reproduced at any church gathering I have ever attended. I have never seen it occur in any kind of setting. Whenever I've asked about the obvious discontinuity I am met with anger and hostility.

What exactly are you referring to?

A couple of comments here, Pel.

First, if every time someone is filled with the Spirit meant that a tongue of fire would hover over them, a sound as of a mighty rushing wind would be heard, and then they would speak in a language that someone present would know and they themselves would not know is not even what Peter expected when he was relaying his experience in Acts 10 to the Jewish Christians. Peter noted that " the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." The "as" is Peter noting what is similar with the experience those in Acts 10 had with those in Acts 2. The only similarity is speaking with other tongues.

If we are going to make "speaking in tongues" a requirement for the New Birth and salvation, then we really should line up our own experiences with that described in the Bible.

I agree. We should be like the early church in doctrine and experience.

[DAII]

2 points that Mizpeh continually glosses over in imposing her doctrine of assumption of a universal sign are:

There is no audible sign in Acts 8 described by Luke.

2. John's disciples had believed on the message of John and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must believe on the Son to be born again.

If we take Paul's question in isolation it is easy to fall for the doctrine of assumption but when we look at the series of questions and realize Paul understood them to be believers in God. We find Paul instructing them of the better promise, Christ. We then find responding to the message. Then they demonstrate a manifestation of being quickened to new life.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Luke doesn't describe Paul receiving the Holy Spirit. Ananias states that praying for Paul to receive his sight and to receive the Holy Spirit is the reason he was sent to Paul. We read that Paul did receive his sight, "immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith" but we are not told anything about his receiving the Holy Spirit though we assume that Paul did receive the Spirit at that time. I don't think we can automatically reason that because Luke didn't record a visible evidence of Paul receiving the Spirit that it didn't happen. Paul seemed to believe that some type of affirmation that a believer would accompany the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit for in Acts 19 he asks the disciples of John if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. If it was commonly held that there was no visible manifestation of some sort when believers receive the Spirit then this question is redundant.

How can we determine with absolute certainty that the phenomena we see tThat's your opinion. I think they line up. The common thread in the written accounts of specific instances of believers receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking with other tongues.

What exactly are you referring to?

A couple of comments here, Pel.

First, if every time someone is filled with the Spirit meant that a tongue of fire would hover over them, a sound as of a mighty rushing wind would be heard, and then they would speak in a language that someone present would know and they themselves would not know is not even what Peter expected when he was relaying his experience in Acts 10 to the Jewish Christians. Peter noted that " the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." The "as" is Peter noting what is similar with the experience those in Acts 10 had with those in Acts 2. The only similarity is speaking with other tongues.

I agree. We should be like the early church in doctrine and experience.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

(I think we've been here before). Acts 2:4-17, has never been reproduced at any church gathering I have ever attended. I have never seen it occur in any kind of setting. Whenever I've asked about the obvious discontinuity I am met with anger and hostility.

The second thing I was going to write and forgot to is that the signs that accompanied the initial outpouring and baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in written about in Acts 2 weren't redundantly reproduced over and over again in the book of Acts when believers received the Holy Spirit yet Peter knew when the Gentiles had received the Spirit...for the spoke with tongues and magnified God. So maybe, just maybe, the perceptual signs of the tongues of fire and the sound of the wind was to make this perfectly clear to the disciples that what they were about to experience was the promise of the Father, the sending of the Comforter, the fullfillment of the prophecy of Joel,...the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The wind, I believe, was an allusion to the wind Jesus spoke of in John 3. I'm not for sure what the tongues of fire signifies except that they were individualized over each recipient and each recipient who received the Spirit spoke with tongues.

Also the argument that because the events in Acts 2 haven't happened to you doesn't mean they couldn't happen somewhere at sometime to someone else unless this truly was a one time thing done by God to inaugurate his new church and covenant and all subsequent infillings of the Spirit were simply accompanied with the visible signs of tongues and prophecy.

[shag]

I think it hard to get past the reason for the "FOR" in Acts 10:46.



Acts 10 ...on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God





and Peter recites the happening:

Acts 11 ...send for Peter; 14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (in Acts 2)

16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life







At the same time tho, I cant for the life of me figure out why so many try to take the place of God like He somehow is not able to fullfill His promise, and they go on to write books of all the modern day "techniques" of how to get somone to the point of speaking in tongues.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

How do you know when you have received the gift of the Holy Spirit?

The believers in the book of Acts Spirit baptisms were accompanied by the signs of tongues and/or prophesying.

Should we or should we not expect a sign that we have received the Spirit?

When I believed.

Ephesians 1:13 NLT
I John 4:15 NLT
John 7:39 NLT