No. JT mentioned it earlier, everyman is dealt a measure of faith. Men make the decision to act on that faith or not, but the simple act of having faith isn't to be confused with receiving the Spirit, though if that faith is acted upon, I do believe it is the means of receivieng the Spirit, no matter how one interprets the baptism of the Spirit. But to say faith=spirit and you can't have any faith unless you have the baptism of the Spirit....well its not accurate, and is a convienient excuse for those who don't submit their lives to God. Really under that interpretation its simply Calvinism.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
because faith has wide usage. God has given every man a measure of faith. That is about cognitive ability to respond and trust. It's part of our nature. We are made in his image. We have faith all the time in people and things. I agree with Jtullock on this in part. Faith cometh BY hearing thus the source of our FAITH is in the GIFT/OFFERING of the Word when it comes to the things of God. He is the author of our response/faith/trust. How can I respond without information to respond to? How can I give a command without communication? That is the essence of faith in part. God gives faith because he brings about belief because he gives you something to believe. Just as I do with my kids, wife, coworkers etc... They place FAITH in what I say and sometimes not but I have to communicate to get a response from them. In communicating I am a author of faith or belief should they respond properly.
People want to make man so depraved it's disgusting.
No. JT mentioned it earlier, everyman is dealt a measure of faith. Men make the decision to act on that faith or not, but the simple act of having faith isn't to be confused with receiving the Spirit, though if that faith is acted upon, I do believe it is the means of receivieng the Spirit, no matter how one interprets the baptism of the Spirit. But to say faith=spirit and you can't have any faith unless you have the baptism of the Spirit....well its not accurate, and is a convienient excuse for those who don't submit their lives to God. Really under that interpretation its simply Calvinism.
I see, thanks.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Oh I completely disagree with you. Ever man is given a measure of faith no matter if it faith to believe in God or faith used to NOT believe in Him. One can have faith before the spirit because one must HAVE faith to receive the spirit. Also, the gift of faith is not simply being able to have faith. It is a gift to be able to increase faith not to start faith. Faith is in everyone a person with a gift of faith has the ablility to help others faith(and their own too) increase.
I say nay, faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, it is seed and it is life. Jesus said, "The Words that I speak are Spirit and they are life." Faith is planted, otherwise how can they believe on someone they've never heard of?
One can't have faith without the Spirit, it's a spiritual virtue, granted it's just a measure.
I agree that the initial measure of faith leads to deeper faith but it has to start somewhere..
Religion has made this more difficult than it really is and in the process has condemned many...
I would like to discuss the theory that there is a difference between Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism, or what some have termed "second work of grace".
The question for this thread is:
How does one know they received the Holy Ghost if not by tongues?
I lean hard towards the "Second work of grace" doctrine, but am in the process of studying it out. I don't have a good defense of my position yet, but I have arrived at the point that I cannot with good conscience say that I believe the Bible teaches that if someone doesn't/hasn't spoken in tongues they are lost. Plainly speaking, I do not belive the initial evidence doctrine is accurate.
However, some questions I've been dealing with are 1)Acts 8 "If the Holy Ghost comes at repentance or baptism, why didn't the Samriatans have it having experienced both. The same argument can be made from Acts 19, so I don't think the defense "because they were Samaritians" holds any weight.
2)As a pentecostal asked me, and then a couple days later a baptist asked basically the same question. "Do we receive the HG [at faith/conversion, but not with tongues] and then recieve the HG a second time, or in a greater measure [baptism of the Spirit, accompanied with tongues]?"
I'd like to dig into this really deep, but I don't really know where to start, so I'd like to get some perspectives from those who have dealt with these questions, to maybe get some good study leads.
IMO, there are times when the Spirit of the Lord is strong(er) upon a person than usual (though I don't know how to describe usual).
But the OT and the NT speak of situations where people were influenced by, filled with and moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord or the Holy Spirit.
The Bible makes a distinction on occasion with Peter, Stephen and maybe others. Of course they were filled with the Holy Spirit, but there are times where the Bible makes a distinction in them as they ministered and prophesied.
If you ask me, tongues are not the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost-- it's a sign of the transformation that has already happened, by GRACE THROUGH FAITH in Jesus Christ.
With this doctrine or concept, I find the scriptures are more congruent.
Higher heights, deeper depths-- our relationship with GOD as our Father, Justifier, and Leader can be so much more dynamic for so many Christians-- me included, if after our faith, we'd follow on to know and experience many of HIS WORKS of GRACE in our lives.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
I say nay, faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, it is seed and it is life. Jesus said, "The Words that I speak are Spirit and they are life." Faith is planted, otherwise how can they believe on someone they've never heard of? One can't have faith without the Spirit, it's a spiritual virtue, granted it's just a measure.
I agree that the initial measure of faith leads to deeper faith but it has to start somewhere..
Religion has made this more difficult than it really is and in the process has condemned many...
So, in your opinion, does a person not have faith until they speak in tongues?
If that is what you are saying, then the scriptures and I disagree with you.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 07-01-2010 at 04:39 PM.
So, in your opinion, does a person not have faith until they speak in tongues?
If that is what you are saying, then the scriptures and I disagree with you.
Where did I say that? I said faith is usually the 1st gift of the Spirit that we realize. Faith comes from the Spirit as well as tongues, many gifts from one Spirit..
Linear Mode
