Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Note this scripture:

Acts 2: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

It says they were filled with the HG.

So let me ask you this, were the ones in the upper room not saved before the HG filled them?

Was there no spirit in their hearts while they tarried for 120 days, praying? Why would they even be there if the spirit of the Lord was not there convicting them, and causing them to seek Him? Why would you spend 4 months in one room praying if there was no spirit at work?

Here's another illustration. I can have a cup that is halfway full, I can still drink from it and enjoy it, but it's not enough, and its not satisfying because I don't have all the fullness available yet to me, because the cup is half empty. When the cup is filled, I can drink from the fullness of the cup, and enjoy all of it, more of it, and be satisfied. The ingredients in the cup didn't change, but the amount did, and the fullness satisfied me, where as the half empty glass was not enough to satisfy me.

In the same way, the spirit of the Lord in a measure comes to us, drawing us to Him, and we cry out to Him in repentance and complete our obedience in baptism and then the Lord is there to fill our cup to overflowing with the fullness of the spirit available to us, with giftings, signs and wonders, as He chooses to give.

Rom. 8:9 if any don't have the Spirit, they're not His(so then they are obviously unsaved, - not born from above Jn 3)

John 7:39 That Spirit ,( the same as Rom 8:9 speaks by of) was not yet available for the 120 headed to the upper room, until the appointed time, so how could they possibly be saved prior to Acts 2:4, if they were none of His, since they "had not the Spirit", because the Spirit they seeked to have, was not available for them to have, until it was given in Acts 2:4?






That's hard for me to get around.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

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.

Thanks Jito. I appreciate your response very much, and I DO understand exactly what you are saying. I grew up thinking that way, trust me, I know.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that when you say (and I quote you from above) "when you receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, you will speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance" you also imply there is an alternative. You are implying with your statement that the alternative should you want to receive the HG and speaking in tongues, and can't is that you are not saved, even though you are not saying it in so many words. But still, the meaning is gravely clear.

Do you see my point now?

Originally Posted by Jito463

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.

I really am not sure I follow you here, or what you are trying to explain with this. Can you further elaborate?

Originally Posted by Jito463

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.

There are probably as many accounts with one speaking in tongues and being filled, as there are accounts of people being saved, without any mention of tongues. So, they really cancel each other out. What we have left then, is to see what else is left in scripture for us to understand what it means to be saved.

Mark 16:16-18 is the clearest scripture there is that clearly states what one must do to be saved, the words of Jesus himself.

And we should not add to it, or take away from it either. "New tongues" are mentioned there, among other things, as a sign that will follow salvation, not a sign that indicates salvation.

My point remains... and is backed clearly by Mark 16:16-18 that salvation includes 2 things: repentance/baptism. And once one has been saved, signs will follow. There are several signs listed, one of them "new tongues". And we see tongues as one of the signs following those who had been saved.

Tongues are not the sign of salvation, but one of the signs that follows one who has been saved.

By the way, think about this. What are the TWO THINGS that in every single account of conversions do you find in the book of Acts?

It is believing and baptism. Every.single.time!

But you don't find tongues recorded as faithfully as believing and baptism. Mark 16:16-18 resounds and resonates throughout the book of Acts.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Rom. 8:9 if any don't have the Spirit, they're not His(so then they are obviously unsaved, - not born from above Jn 3)

John 7:39 That Spirit ,( the same as Rom 8:9 speaks by of) was not yet available for the 120 headed to the upper room, until the appointed time, so how could they possibly be saved prior to Acts 2:4, if they were none of His, since they "had not the Spirit", because the Spirit they seeked to have, was not available for them to have, until it was given in Acts 2:4?

That's hard for me to get around.

Hello Bro. James! Glad to have you join the discussion

Let me ask you this? Would you spend months praying in a small room with 120 other people if the spirit of the Lord were not there convicting, and dealing with your heart?

In the words of Jesus he said ye shall receive power:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


The Holy Ghost in its fullest measure was given to empower the church like never before, with signs following. The HG had already been at work in the life of John, Elizabeth, Mary and Jesus too.

So, it wasn't for a matter of salvation that they tarried in the Upper Room, but the group understood that they were going to receive power from the Lord. There is no mention of salvation here, but that the power was coming so that they could be witnesses of Jesus throughout the world.

The HG was given to empower. The spirit of the Lord is at work in one's life in order to bring them to a place of repentance and baptism.

But to be fully empowered and endued with the spirit this comes when the Lord deems the heart is ready to receive the power from on high, and then signs will follow that.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

KBTW, The Holy Ghost is a promise to those who will obey the gospel. Tongues is only the sign of its occurrence. We don't seek tongues, but instead we recognize Spirit baptism by tongues. It is the only way that the scripture demonstrates. Truly it does take the Spirit to draw a person to repentance and baptism, but that doesn't mean that a person has been baptized or filled with the Spirit at that point.

I also know that the evidence is tongues but i do not know if there are two distinct things new morn vs holy ghost baptism.
The cases are 5 :
1) they dont have the holy ghost ,they are just touched by but not dwell in them.
2) they have maybe the holy ghost but they dont speak in tongues because nobody teach them, or
3)it is not the only evidence.
4) they have the holy ghost in them but they are not "filled" with that (i listen a person say this with an example of a glass of water with some water and an other overflow)
5) They are new born because the holy spirit gives them a "new spirit" ,Jesus forgives them and they are sealed bu the holy ghost ,new creatures but they dont have the holy ghost fill them and empower them. (this one i find more logic)
Wich of them you think is "correct"?

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Hello Bro. James! Glad to have you join the discussion

Let me ask you this? Would you spend months praying in a small room with 120 other people if the spirit of the Lord were not there convicting, and dealing with your heart?

In the words of Jesus he said ye shall receive power:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


The Holy Ghost in its fullest measure was given to empower the church like never before, with signs following. The HG had already been at work in the life of John, Elizabeth, Mary and Jesus too.

So, it wasn't for a matter of salvation that they tarried in the Upper Room, but the group understood that they were going to receive power from the Lord. There is no mention of salvation here, but that the power was coming so that they could be witnesses of Jesus throughout the world.

The HG was given to empower. The spirit of the Lord is at work in one's life in order to bring them to a place of repentance and baptism.

But to be fully empowered and endued with the spirit this comes when the Lord deems the heart is ready to receive the power from on high, and then signs will follow that.

So even though the scripture says we are not His without having His Spirit(Rom.8), and they could not have had His Spirit until Acts 2:4, according to Jn 7:39, you still think they were His, before they could have been His.


Respectfullly, how can you claim they had the Spirit to some degree, when scripture says they could not have?


Where is the scripture(s) that says they had the Spirit, even though according to Jn. 7:39 the could not have had?




To answer your question, yes I can imagine tarrying and praying and not being saved, but feeling the Lord draw me toward him. Been there, done that.
What scripture is it that says if the Lord convicts / draws a sinner, they already have His Spirit dwelling in them?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

GS... I had to copy and paste again. Do you know how to use the quotes properly in a discussion? If not, just ask, and I'll try my best to explain to you. It is much easier to respond to you if you quote correctly. I've had to cut and paste your responses again.

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?

Your case that "the only biblical evidence that anyone has for the baptism of the Holy Ghost is tongues" does not hold up. See these scriptures:

Acts 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

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:

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 12:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Please show where in any of these above passages that tongues were mentioned when people were filled with the Holy Ghost?



But you are essentially agreeing with my position, don't you see that? You said "it does take the spirit to draw a person to repentance/baptism but that doesn't mean that a person has been baptized or filled with the spirit" And I agree with that. A measure of the spirit is present, of which you agree, and then the fullness is poured out at such a time as the Lord designs, and is filled.

Where we differ is that you believe tongues MUST be present in order to know that the spirit is received, but I've just listed events above where tongues was not specifically mentioned at all. And then of course, there are events where tongues are mentioned. So we cannot make assumptions based on what we think should have happened when it is not written there.

The best we can do is stand on the clearest scripture we have about how to be saved, out of the mouth of Jesus himself, that repentance/baptism are two main components of the salvational experience and that signs follow.

Mark 16:16-17 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;

The best thing we can do is stand up on all of God's word. I have repented of my sins and I have been baptized in Jesus name, but there are no entitlements here. I am still only going to be saved through the mercy and the grace of God. You have questioned others on here if we thank that we are saved by tongues and the answer is no. Neither is baptism in and of itself what saves us. It is God that saves us.

It is not about a magic formula as some have made it, but instead it is about adhering to the word of God. It is God's grace that we are depending on so it must be his Word that we are to follow.

You seem to be saying that we get enough Holy Ghost up front at repentance and baptism that it is not necessary to be baptized with the Spirit. And also, that the Holy Ghost baptism (your terms as the fulness of the Spirit) is evidenced by any of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12. I have never known anyone to be baptized with the Holy Ghost by discerning of Spirits, etc.

You said that the fullness of the Spirit comes later. My question is how do you recognize that someone receives the fullness of the Holy Ghost?

[good samaritan]

[QUOTE=peter83;1468810]

I also know that the evidence is tongues but i do not know if there are two distinct things new morn vs holy ghost baptism

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined sentence.

[peter83]

[QUOTE=good samaritan;1468821]

Originally Posted by peter83

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined sentence.

oh sorry! i mean : i believe the evidence of spirit baptism is speaking in other tongues but i dont know if this a second experience followed salvation (being born again)

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

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.

I'm not talking about the external presence of God which one can feel, I'm talking about the infilling of the HG. Two very different things.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

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.

So you believe the infilling of the HG is simply an added benefit, and not necessary to salvation; One may be saved by simply believing and being baptized?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

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

You must repent, be baptized and receive the infilling of the HG to be saved. The evidence of one receiving the HG has always been tongues. Prove by scripture where the initial evidence of the infilling of the HG was anything other than tongues.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

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.

But you are taking away, because you ignore the scripture which clearly states tongues were a sign of the infilling of the HG. And by claiming Mark 16:16 is THE plan of salvation, you're removing the infilling of the spirit from salvation. You believe a person only need to believe and be baptized - no HG infilling needed.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

There are probably as many accounts with one speaking in tongues and being filled, as there are accounts of people being saved, without any mention of tongues. So, they really cancel each other out.

smh