Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

You keep saying "the fullness of the Spirit was not available, but they had a measure, yet that's not what Jn 7:39 says. It very clearly reads that His Spirit not available, zilch, zero, nadda, not a measure, not a 1/2 a cup, but zilch.

That scripture says not available, but you argue that it was available.
(only in a "smaller portion", or however u worded it)

How can u say it was available("small amounts") when it clearly says NOT given? (Not given means none, not at all, not even an itsy bitsy bit




But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given,(Zilch) because Jesus was not yet glorified.

When you understand how John, Elizabeth, Simeon and Zacharius were FILLED with the Holy Ghost, BEFORE Calvary, then you will understand the answer to your question.

[JamesGlen]

Enlighten me.
They were filled, yet u say no one was filled, they only had a measure.

Yet Jesus said that the BELIEVER had zero Spirt until glorification.
Zilch.

Believers receiving His Spirit was different than the examples u gave of "the prophet Johns family".

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

Enlighten me.
They were filled, yet u say no one was filled, they only had a measure.

Yet Jesus said that the BELIEVER had zero Spirt until glorification.
Zilch.

Believers receiving His Spirit was different than the examples u gave of "the prophet Johns family".

Does the spirit of the Lord change? Should we answer that question first? In the OT, Isaiah said it was like "fire shut up in his bones". We know that many of the prophets were moved on by the spirit. And then we read of several being filled with the HG, before the HG was ever poured out on the Day of Pentecost.

So, does the spirit of the Lord change?

Or are there diversities, dimensions, and different operations of the same spirit?

That is how we can see on one hand that throughout the OT, and before Calvary that the spirit of the Lord was at work, and continued to work in the hearts of the 120 after Calvary who spent months in the upper room seeking Him.

But there was a new dimension or perhaps diversity or operation of the spirit that came into place on the Day of Pentecost, and it was this diversity that the Lord Jesus was speaking of to His disciples. It wasn't that the spirit wasn't already at work, it was just that a new diversity of the spirit was coming that was going to empower them.

1 Cor. 12: 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Then what is the word "saved" in there alongside repentance and baptism? No, regardless of the manner in which Jesus spoke it to His disciples, the emphasis and words are very, very clear.

Again, the theme and focus is not salvation. Yes, the word "saved" is there, but it's not the focus of the passage, nor is it meant to be THE plan of salvation.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Are you saying that repentance and baptism are not part of salvation? Because that is what the alternative would be of your statement.

If you've read my posts, you'd know the answer and know that this is absurd! I've stated several times that you must follow the death, burial and resurrection. In fact, in this post to which you responded I stated repentence, water baptism and the infilling of the HG as necessary for salvation.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Ah, but Jesus did mention the spirit... otherwise how could there be signs following? The tongues, casting out devils, healings? How could this be accomplished by none other than the Holy Ghost spirit working in a life?

Nope. Not in Mark 16:16, 17 or 18. No mention of His spirit. The only thing mentioned is believing and baptism. Not a word about being filled with his spirit. Remember, you don't want to add anything to what's written. You've argued for several posts that because the passage of Paul's conversion doesn't specifically mention him speaking in tongues that it must mean it's not necessary. Same applies here. Jesus did not mention His spirit in this passage. He did not mention anything about being filled with His spirit, either. Thus, He must mean that ONLY belief and baptism are required. But that would make it incomplete, having only the death and burial - but no resurrection.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

This scripture irks you and you say it isn't a salvational scripture because the signs following wasn't just "tongues", but other supernatural giftings.

But in fact it is the clearest scripture we have of what salvation entails.

Again, are you arguing with the words of Jesus?

It doesn't irk me. I love Mark 16. I just don't believe Mark 16 is meant as a standard for salvation, since no mention is made of being filled with His spirit.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

No absolutely not. I agree! Signs following have to be accomplished with the Spirit.

I just don't see that tongues HAS to accompany the gifting of the HG, that's quite simple to see in this passage.

Show where anything other than tongues was the evidence of receiving the HG.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

What did Jesus say the Holy Ghost would do? The answer is found in the scripture below:

Acts 1: 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
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.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Interesting. I had thought you were apostolic. Thanks for answering the question.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

How about you go back and read all the accounts of people being saved in the book of Acts, and then come back and tell us how many of those people the book of Acts recorded as speaking in tongues. It's a good refresher study

You didn't answer the question or provide any proof that the initial evidence of the infilling of the HG is anything other than tongues.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Maybe just check and see where it says that the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion too.

I'll do that when you point out where Jesus mentions His spirit in Mark 16.

[peter83]

Brothers and sisters i i dont have a clear understanding of that (if there is salvation before and separate from Holy Ghost baptism) but all we must consider the power of the cross!
What wonderful and perfect thing! The cross has power .
It is only because we believe in the cross Jesus died that we are able to take his holy spirit. With this i mean that i can not judge anybody who boast on the cross.

gal.6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

If God see them (those who believe) clean! then who i am to judge what God saves with His own blood!

And yes i have the holy ghost and many blessings and charisma from Him but in the end i only have my hope to the BLOOD of Jesus and His mercy !

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

Again, the theme and focus is not salvation. Yes, the word "saved" is there, but it's not the focus of the passage, nor is it meant to be THE plan of salvation.

You must not be able to read the passage and find the word "saved" and "damned" in the very same sentence together. It doesn't get much clearer than that. You are saying it is not the focus because you don't want it to be, because it doesn't say exactly what you have been trained to think it should say.

You are arguing and taking away from the words of Jesus. His words were very clear.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Originally Posted by n david

If you've read my posts, you'd know the answer and know that this is absurd! I've stated several times that you must follow the death, burial and resurrection. In fact, in this post to which you responded I stated repentence, water baptism and the infilling of the HG as necessary for salvation.

I was saying the alternative of what you said would be that. I just wanted you to think about it, even though I understand what you think salvation consists of.

Originally Posted by n david

Nope. Not in Mark 16:16, 17 or 18. No mention of His spirit. The only thing mentioned is believing and baptism. Not a word about being filled with his spirit. Remember, you don't want to add anything to what's written. You've argued for several posts that because the passage of Paul's conversion doesn't specifically mention him speaking in tongues that it must mean it's not necessary. Same applies here. Jesus did not mention His spirit in this passage. He did not mention anything about being filled with His spirit, either. Thus, He must mean that ONLY belief and baptism are required. But that would make it incomplete, having only the death and burial - but no resurrection.

Than what was Jesus talking about when He said that signs that would follow?

Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

How else would signs and wonders take place without the spirit of God?

So in essence, Jesus did make mention of the spirit that would be manifested through signs and wonders as Paul confirmed also.

Originally Posted by n david

It doesn't irk me. I love Mark 16. I just don't believe Mark 16 is meant as a standard for salvation, since no mention is made of being filled with His spirit.

Or you don't think it should be the standard for salvation since it doesn't say all you want it to say? More likely.

As a matter of fact, Mark 16 and Acts 2:38 work together perfectly. In fact, perhaps you should like Mark 16 better than Acts 2:38, because Acts 2:38 does not mention "tongues", but Mark 16 does. So why would you not think that Mark 16 is talking about salvation, when it clearly states what must be done to be saved?

Originally Posted by n david

Show where anything other than tongues was the evidence of receiving the HG.

Acts 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. (no mention of tongues)

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. (no mention of tongues)

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.

Paul was filled with the HG, but no mention made of tongues.

Acts 16:30And 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. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 8:36 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? 37And 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. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And 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. (no mention of tongues)

Please note that I am not saying tongues "can't" be part of the initial experience, I absolutely am NOT saying that.

I am just saying that tongues may or may not be part of the initial experience, and the evidence of salvation should not be based on tongues.

Originally Posted by n david

Interesting. I had thought you were apostolic. Thanks for answering the question.

So because I stated the very words of Jesus (Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you) you claim that because I stand on those words I am not apostolic? LOL!

I guess you don't like the words of Jesus at all. You are discounting Mark 16, and now Acts 1:8 as though they can't possibly be part of the salvational message.

I am very apostolic. I believe in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and that signs will follow those who have been saved when the Lord gifts with His spirit as He chooses, which seems to be most often with tongues.

My only difference from you, most likely, is that scripture does not place tongues as having to be present in order for salvation to take place, but you think it does say that.

Originally Posted by n david

You didn't answer the question or provide any proof that the initial evidence of the infilling of the HG is anything other than tongues.

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.

(Paul was filled with the HG, but no mention made of tongues).

Originally Posted by n david

I'll do that when you point out where Jesus mentions His spirit in Mark 16.

I did. See above.

Maybe just check and see where it says that the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues at his conversion too.

Your turn

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by peter83

Brothers and sisters i i dont have a clear understanding of that (if there is salvation before and separate from Holy Ghost baptism) but all we must consider the power of the cross!
What wonderful and perfect thing! The cross has power .
It is only because we believe in the cross Jesus died that we are able to take his holy spirit. With this i mean that i can not judge anybody who boast on the cross.

gal.6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

If God see them (those who believe) clean! then who i am to judge what God saves with His own blood!

And yes i have the holy ghost and many blessings and charisma from Him but in the end i only have my hope to the BLOOD of Jesus and His mercy !

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

You must not be able to read the passage and find the word "saved" and "damned" in the very same sentence together. It doesn't get much clearer than that. You are saying it is not the focus because you don't want it to be, because it doesn't say exactly what you have been trained to think it should say.
You are arguing and taking away from the words of Jesus. His words were very clear.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I'm not denying they're in the scripture. I'm saying the topic of conversation, the text, the subject matter, the theme of the conversation was not about salvation. It was Jesus' anger in their unbelief. I'm saying it's not the focus because it's not. Facts don't care about feelings. It's not about what I want it to be or not to be. It is what it is.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to keep arguing about it.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I was saying the alternative of what you said would be that. I just wanted you to think about it, even though I understand what you think salvation consists of.

Ok.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Than what was Jesus talking about when He said that signs that would follow?

Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

How else would signs and wonders take place without the spirit of God?

So in essence, Jesus did make mention of the spirit that would be manifested through signs and wonders as Paul confirmed also.

No, none of this "in essence" and using a different scripture of what Paul said in Romans to try and claim Jesus mentioned the spirit in Mark 16:16. You claimed Jesus mentioned the spirit in Mark 16:16. He did not. You can't just go and pull another scripture and use the words of someone else to try and somehow claim Jesus said it.

"In essence" Paul most likely did speak in tongues when he received the HG because there are several other scriptures in which people who received the HG spoke with tongues. So, there ya go.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Or you don't think it should be the standard for salvation since it doesn't say all you want it to say? More likely.

Again, it says what it says. The theme/topic/subject/et al of conversation is about belief (or lack thereof) of the disciples. IMO, Jesus was not giving the plan of salvation, but was telling his disciples what was possible for believers. I also don't believe it because there is no mention of being filled with the HG, which leaves out a major part of salvation. You believe it's the absolute authoritative statement of how we must be saved. Ok.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

As a matter of fact, Mark 16 and Acts 2:38 work together perfectly. In fact, perhaps you should like Mark 16 better than Acts 2:38, because Acts 2:38 does not mention "tongues", but Mark 16 does. So why would you not think that Mark 16 is talking about salvation, when it clearly states what must be done to be saved?

See above.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Acts 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. (no mention of tongues)

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. (no mention of tongues)

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.

Paul was filled with the HG, but no mention made of tongues.

Acts 16:30And 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. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (no mention of tongues)

Acts 8:36 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? 37And 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. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And 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. (no mention of tongues)

Please note that I am not saying tongues "can't" be part of the initial experience, I absolutely am NOT saying that.

I am just saying that tongues may or may not be part of the initial experience, and the evidence of salvation should not be based on tongues.

You have yet to prove there was any evidence other than tongues. The scriptures you've provided may not mention tongues specifically, but they also do not show any other evidence of being filled with the HG.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So because I stated the very words of Jesus (Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you) you claim that because I stand on those words I am not apostolic? LOL!

No. I posted I had thought you were apostolic. The reason I don't believe so now is because your posts discount the infilling of the HG as something which may or may not occur at some point in a believer's life, but is not necessary for salvation; whereas Apostolics believe the infilling of the HG as essential to salvation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I guess you don't like the words of Jesus at all. You are discounting Mark 16, and now Acts 1:8 as though they can't possibly be part of the salvational message.

No. Wrong and wrong. I am not discounting Mark 16, nor am I discounting Acts 1:8. While you are correct that I do not believe Mark 16 was about salvation or meant to be the authoritative statement on how to be saved, you are completely wrong by suggesting that I included Acts 1:8 in my posts.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I am very apostolic. I believe in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and that signs will follow those who have been saved when the Lord gifts with His spirit as He chooses, which seems to be most often with tongues.

Do you believe a person must be filled with the HG to be saved?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

My only difference from you, most likely, is that scripture does not place tongues as having to be present in order for salvation to take place, but you think it does say that.

The infilling of the HG must occur for one to be saved. Tongues has been the initial evidence that a person has received the HG.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

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.

(Paul was filled with the HG, but no mention made of tongues).

Neither is there any mention of anything else as evidence of the infilling of the HG.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I did. See above.

No, you didn't, because it's not in Mark 16. You tried pulling a scripture from Paul to the Romans, and then said, so "in essence" Jesus did mention the spirit in Mark 16. Doesn't work that way. If so, I'll take the verses from Acts which show people speaking in tongues after receiving the HG and I'll claim "in essence" Paul spoke in tongues when he received the HG.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not denying they're in the scripture. I'm saying the topic of conversation, the text, the subject matter, the theme of the conversation was not about salvation. It was Jesus' anger in their unbelief. I'm saying it's not the focus because it's not. Facts don't care about feelings. It's not about what I want it to be or not to be. It is what it is. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to keep arguing about it.

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

Originally Posted by n david

No, none of this "in essence" and using a different scripture of what Paul said in Romans to try and claim Jesus mentioned the spirit in Mark 16:16. You claimed Jesus mentioned the spirit in Mark 16:16. He did not. You can't just go and pull another scripture and use the words of someone else to try and somehow claim Jesus said it.

"In essence" Paul most likely did speak in tongues when he received the HG because there are several other scriptures in which people who received the HG spoke with tongues. So, there ya go.

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

Originally Posted by n david

Again, it says what it says. The theme/topic/subject/et al of conversation is about belief (or lack thereof) of the disciples. IMO, Jesus was not giving the plan of salvation, but was telling his disciples what was possible for believers. I also don't believe it because there is no mention of being filled with the HG, which leaves out a major part of salvation. You believe it's the absolute authoritative statement of how we must be saved. Ok.

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.

Originally Posted by n david

You have yet to prove there was any evidence other than tongues. The scriptures you've provided may not mention tongues specifically, but they also do not show any other evidence of being filled with the HG.

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.

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

Originally Posted by n david

No. I posted I had thought you were apostolic. The reason I don't believe so now is because your posts discount the infilling of the HG as something which may or may not occur at some point in a believer's life, but is not necessary for salvation; whereas Apostolics believe the infilling of the HG as essential to salvation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

Originally Posted by n david

Do you believe a person must be filled with the HG to be saved?

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

Mark 15: 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 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.

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.

Originally Posted by n david

The infilling of the HG must occur for one to be saved. Tongues has been the initial evidence that a person has received the HG. Neither is there any mention of anything else as evidence of the infilling of the HG. No, you didn't, because it's not in Mark 16. You tried pulling a scripture from Paul to the Romans, and then said, so "in essence" Jesus did mention the spirit in Mark 16. Doesn't work that way. If so, I'll take the verses from Acts which show people speaking in tongues after receiving the HG and I'll claim "in essence" Paul spoke in tongues when he received the HG.

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.

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!

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.

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.

[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.