What does having the Holy Spirit mean?

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

This is exactly how I feel about those who in spite of what the Scripture actually says about what it means to be born again insist on their own interpretation rather than simply accepting what the Bible says.

Take your own medicine. Simply accept what the Bible says about The Spirit indwelling and what is manifest with it.

If the Spirit falls without tongues why interrupt Peter at Cornelius' place? Could not the Spirit have been given nice and quietly? Why cause a ruckus in the middle of a perfectly good sermon?

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 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. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Tongues is how they knew then and it is how we know now. Simple.


Consider Peter's response in explaning the matter at Jerusalem:

11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


Notice Peter didn't make mention of tongues, yet we know that they spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came. Where was Peter's neccessary redundancy?


God Bless, Theo.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Yes, that is my view from the word of God and my experience as I've already related to you. Your last two posts (124, 125) were very good and I agree with most of what you say. Repentance is an inner work of the heart but does not require the Spirit of God to be in a person for the work to be done.

.....and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you....

Receiving the Spirit is separate from repentance. From what I understand you believe there are two times a person receives the Spirit of God, once at belief and repentance and then again with the sign of tongues. I cannot find proof for that anywhere in the scriptures.

The first time the apostles received the Spirit was on the day of Pentecost. They had been given power and authority over devils and sickness before the day of Pentecost. They baptized believers in water unto repentance before the day of Pentecost, but they did not have the Holy Spirit IN them until Acts 2:4. Jesus said the Comforter was WITH them but would be in them. Jesus said He must go away to send the Comforter.... ... I can't find where the apostles had been given the Spirit twice.

After the discussions over the past few weeks, like Barb, I have been searching the scriptures to see if these things are so. I'm doing a inductive study on the book of Romans to help me understand justification among other things.

Good! The kind of discussion that causes us to search the Scriptures more is beneficial and edifying and uplifting!

You explain your position well and of course I'm well acquainted with it. I've heard it over and over.

One thing I want to say ..... I don't believe that reception of the Spirit is necessarily two separate events. But there are different works/operations of the Spirit in and on our lives and they don't all happen at the same time.

In actuality when you say that the Spirit comes ON us and is WITH us is a separate event that takes place before we're Spirit filled. And the fact is that the 120 were moved on by the Holy Ghost in several ways before they spoke in tongues. In other words there were different operations of the Spirit that day before the ultimate speaking in tongues.

Oh my....... my mind is going in so many different directions here with this .... it's hard for me to stay on track. So many different aspects that can be considered and brought out.

I read a post by one of the elders on another forum a couple weeks back that impacted me greatly. I still haven't come to a conclusion totally ..... but it did open my eyes and gave me a perspective on receiving the baptism of the Spirit that I hadn't had previous to that. I still believe a person is regenerated before they are Spirit filled with tongues evidence. However, I do believe that the enduement of power we receive ushers us into a new position spiritually speaking and gives us benefits (again spiritually speaking) that we don't have .... and that don't come with initial conversion!

Originally Posted by Barb

Well, sir...I am not in the habit of making a mountain out of a molehill, as you say, so perhaps we should end this point here...

I am a 'PAJCer' yet I found TB's post neither offensive or argumentative...and that is my opinion.

Well ma'am, sounds good to me. I know you are a PAJCer, as it were, and nor did I find it offensive, but certainly argumentative naturally, a very weak one with a little tude. I think you've got to have a little tude to expect exhaustive redundency to prove something that you don't believe.

Originally Posted by Felicity

Good! The kind of discussion that causes us to search the Scriptures more is beneficial and edifying and uplifting!

You explain your position well and of course I'm well acquainted with it. I've heard it over and over.

One thing I want to say ..... I don't believe that reception of the Spirit is necessarily two separate events. But there are different works/operations of the Spirit in and on our lives and they don't all happen at the same time.

In actuality when you say that the Spirit comes ON us and is WITH us is a separate event that takes place before we're Spirit filled. And the fact is that the 120 were moved on by the Holy Ghost in several ways before they spoke in tongues. In other words there were different operations of the Spirit that day before the ultimate speaking in tongues.

Oh my....... my mind is going in so many different directions here with this .... it's hard for me to stay on track. So many different aspects that can be considered and brought out.

I read a post by one of the elders on another forum a couple weeks back that impacted me greatly. I still haven't come to a conclusion totally ..... but it did open my eyes and gave me a perspective on receiving the baptism of the Spirit that I hadn't had previous to that. I still believe a person is regenerated before they are Spirit filled with tongues evidence. However, I do believe that the enduement of power we receive ushers us into a new position spiritually speaking and gives us benefits (again spiritually speaking) that we don't have .... and that don't come with initial conversion!

Care to share the elders post? PM?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Theo

exhaustive redundency

*makes mental note to add this to my file of great descriptive phrasing (with the spelling correction of course*

redundancy

Originally Posted by Felicity

*makes mental note to add this to my file of great descriptive phrasing (with the spelling correction of course*

redundancy

Thanks, I had it right earlier..I think. It's what I get for hurried posts and bypassing my checker.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Felicity

*makes mental note to add this to my file of great descriptive phrasing (with the spelling correction of course*

redundancy

LOL, I made the same mental note. I hope it sticks and I don't have to come back to this thread to remind myself.

I've tried to explain this concept in toooo many words before.....as in a prior post in this thread where neither Lydia nor the Philippian jailer are said to receive the Spirit upon their conversions. It doesn't mean they weren't filled with the Spirit nor does it not mean they didn't speak in tongues. I'm sure Paul was consistent in preaching the gospel everywhere he went.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Felicity

I read a post by one of the elders on another forum a couple weeks back that impacted me greatly. I still haven't come to a conclusion totally ..... but it did open my eyes and gave me a perspective on receiving the baptism of the Spirit that I hadn't had previous to that. I still believe a person is regenerated before they are Spirit filled with tongues evidence. However, I do believe that the enduement of power we receive ushers us into a new position spiritually speaking and gives us benefits (again spiritually speaking) that we don't have .... and that don't come with initial conversion!

I'd like to read a post that made an impact on you!

I haven't even touched on scriptures that point to the new birth as water and Spirit baptisms. I don't believe I've heard a sound explanation of the Bible which explains the new birth as other than the baptisms found in Acts 2:38 and Hebrews 6:1-2.

Originally Posted by Felicity

It's not about numbers really. It's about testimony of being totally changed as a result of placing faith in the Christ of Calvary for salvation. It's about people who accept that the God of the universe robed Himself in flesh, came to earth as a man and died as the supreme sacrifice and that they have believed and placed their faith in this God and have made Him Lord of their life. It's about the spiritual transformation that took place in their life as a result and the change that it brought to them 'spiritually' and in other ways that affected huge change in their lifestyle.

Scripture tells us we can't even confess Jesus is Lord without a work of the Holy Ghost in a person's life. So who are we to say that their testimony and confession isn't true or based on a genuine true salvation experience. I don't care if it's 500 or 500,000,000. It's the testimony that's important. I have the same testimony as they do and it can't be discounted.

Look Sis, I know what you are saying. You've basically described most of Christendom and the extent of some of their doctrine.

I have many friends that are just average protestant Christians, some are of the Anabaptist movements. You want to talk about a change of life!

I find many good things with all of them, yet many are without knowledge and as a result it is no mystery to them why the Spirit never moves in services and the things of the book of Acts is rarely read about, much less seen. I've seen advertisements from some churches that skip the entire book in the course of Bible study. The study goes from the Book of John straight to the book of Romans...no kidding!

I have a burden for Christendom and particularly the Anabaptists currently, yet some Anabaptists teach that tongues is of the devil and to me that is nearly, if not, Blasphemy of the Spirit. Most just consider it optional and unnecessary, yet you never see it at all.

So this testimony concept is nice and all, and potentially part of the process of progress for many.

However, it is also potentially dangerous and eternally fatal for those that do not continue in his Word, safe in the status quo that they have been taught is the extent of their needful steps toward salvation instead of the very beginning.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Can someone prove that the 3000 who responded to Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost spoke with other tongues?

We have Luke carefully recording that the 120 spoke with tongues of men on the Day of Pentecost, yet 3000 people speak in an unknown tongue and it gets no attention at all? He is careful to mention those receiving Peter's message were baptized but no mention of tongues. In chapter 4 another 2000 men believe, so that the number of men now believing the gospel has increased to 5000 men, yet once again no mention is made of anyone speaking in other tongues. Why would you be so careful to record a phenomena that happened among 120, yet 5000 men speaking in an unknown tongues gets no attention?

In Acts 10 Luke is careful to record that a household of people spoke with other tongues. In Acts 19 Luke is careful to record that 12 disciples of John spoke with other tongues. Yet, this same Luke doesn't consider it newsworthy that 5000 people have spoken with other tongues? Even in Acts 8:17 where a multitude of people received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Peter and John laid hands on them, Luke once again sees no reason to get excited enough about such a multitude all speaking with other tongues to bother recording it. I find this amazing!

I have yet to hear anyone give a satisfactory explanation as to how sinners can be so miraculously transformed and used of God to bring deliverance to others, over a period of years, yet not even be born again according to the "not born again until you speak in tongues" teaching.

TB- Notice that Luke is more specific about what actually occurs with the smaller numbers and much more general with the bigger numbers. That's not all....

Luke writes about ressurected Jesus being on Earth for 40 days in the first chapter of Acts with almost nilch detail. What's up with that?

In fact, I read a book by an attorney, John W. Mauck, called "Paul on Trial" which makes an excellent case for the book of Acts being written as a trial brief on Paul's behalf. This would explain all kinds of things we don't find in Acts that we would expect to be there and things we are told that we wouldn't expect to be there.

The author goes through each chapter of Acts and shows how what was written was legally relevant to Paul's upcoming trial. In fact, Luke clearly lays out the position that Christianity was born of Judiasm [which had an exemption from Roman religion/pagan worship] and would be the basis for defending Paul at his trial.

Luke paid more attention to smaller groups of people and individuals (potential witnesses) then large groups of people (who were nameless).

Consequently, I would not be comfortable putting too much stock in the lack of detail about larger groups.