Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Tongues are mentioned several times, as well.

Can you list those scriptures?

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's because tongues are not salvational, how many times must we say that?

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, the bottom line is you don't believe it.

Or do you? If you did really believe that tongues are not salvational, you probably wouldn't be in this discussion for this long.

Your statement "tongues are not salvational"... this seems to imply that you believe if a person never speaks in tongues (but has repented/baptized), they are still saved, and can go to heaven when they die. Yes, or no?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

This word "full" you keep continuously adding, to fit your theory. But this word "full" is not found in Jn 7:39. Jn 7:39 does not paint a picture that part of His Spirit had been previously been given to dwell IN believers, and then the rest would come at Pentecost. It paints a clear simplistic picture that His Spirit was not yet given. Not yet given. How can one add the word "full" to what is not there, saying His Spirit hadn't been "fully" given?

With the underlined, above, you are insinuating AND claiming that there was an outpouring before there was an outpouring.
I just don't get that.
But I'll quit continuing for to post a disagreement with that.

The word "full" is just a term that best describes the HG outpouring that we find all throughout scripture, that so far in this discussion, I have not seen anyone address.

It is a fact that there are quite a few mentions of people having the Holy Ghost BEFORE the Day of Pentecost. How can this be?

How could the Holy Ghost be moving in these people before the DOP?

Are there two different Holy Ghosts?

Can you answer that for me?

For the record and for easy reference, here are some of the scriptures where people are full of the Holy Ghost BEFORE the Day of Pentecost.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

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:

[JamesGlen]

So we have John the baptist's(who was said to be Elijah "to come" by Jesus) parents.
And then Elijah and David, over the period of how many thousand years...

These "quite a few"... we have what, maybe 4-5 circumstances that yes you are correct I cannot explain why God chose them, however the Spirit was NOT available to dwell in "converted" believers according to Jn 7:39, until glorification.

...Which believers should receive(but yet you say they already did).

For as yet, the Holyghost was NOT YET GIVEN. How could he have said it more planely?

It doesn't say "not yet FULLY given".

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Can you list those scriptures?

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, the bottom line is you don't believe it.

Or do you? If you did really believe that tongues are not salvational, you probably wouldn't be in this discussion for this long.

Your statement "tongues are not salvational"... this seems to imply that you believe if a person never speaks in tongues (but has repented/baptized), they are still saved, and can go to heaven when they die. Yes, or no?

*sigh*

I give up.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Hello Covey, thank you for joining the discussion. I have addressed this "sound" discussion earlier in the thread, but I know it is cumbersome to read through all of it.

Just to clarify and make sure we are both on the same page, you might want to read John 3 again just to refresh your memory. John 3 has the famous verse in it, remember this one?

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus is talking about believing all through this chapter. He that believeth will not be condemned.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Nowhere in John 3 did Jesus mention anything about speaking in tongues. One must "hop around" to try to make the “sound” concept work.

What Jesus did mention, time and time again in this chapter, was believing. And we can find many scriptures to parallel believing with salvation, and being born again. In fact, the Apostle Paul himself was baptized, and born again, saved, without any record of him speaking in tongues.

Now, don't leave here thinking that I don't believe in speaking in tongues, because I do.

The concept I am coming against, is the one of trying to build a case that salvation cannot happen or begin until one speaks in tongues, with nary a scripture to support that. In contrast, many, many scriptures state salvation begins with believing/repentance/baptism.

Here's a few... there's many more...

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And John here in this scripture also equates believing with the spirit:

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

So from all indications in this chapter, and with the weight of NT scriptures, we are told that the spirit is present upon believing, and once one has believed, and been baptized, the Lord is then able to gift and pour out the full measure of His spirit into that heart, most often noted with the sign of speaking in tongues.

Have you ever seen someone receive the full measure with any other gift other than tongues and if so what was the sign you have personally witnessed?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

So we have John the baptist's(who was said to be Elijah "to come" by Jesus) parents.
And then Elijah and David, over the period of how many thousand years...

These "quite a few"... we have what, maybe 4-5 circumstances that yes you are correct I cannot explain why God chose them, however the Spirit was NOT available to dwell in "converted" believers according to Jn 7:39, until glorification.

...Which believers should receive(but yet you say they already did).

For as yet, the Holyghost was NOT YET GIVEN. How could he have said it more planely?

It doesn't say "not yet FULLY given".

You are right, the explanation for why the HG was mentioned throughout the OT and also before the DOP in the NT has no explanation for those who want to believe that there was no way the HG could be given before then. But we know it was.

The difference is that the HG was given with POWER on the DOP because of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus... now the HG was given with power, as Jesus said in Acts 1.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Are you serious?



*sigh*

I give up.

Blessings to you...

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Have you ever seen someone receive the full measure with any other gift other than tongues and if so what was the sign you have personally witnessed?

Yes. They have exhibited the fruit of the spirit mightily in their lives, as well as signs and wonders too. But have never spoken in tongues.

[Jito463]

KBTW, why are you so insistent on twisting our words? You can't just say you disagree with us about tongues, you have to pervert what we're saying to conform to what you believe about us, that (according to you) tongues are salvational. No one here has ever said tongues are salvational. No one, that is, except for you.

If you disagree with us, that's one thing, but by distorting what we're saying and trying to create a strawman against us, all you're doing is causing conflict.

I don't know why you can't simply take us at our words, but that - to me - indicates some deep seated hatred or bitterness against what we're saying. It can't just be that we're in disagreement, we have to be utterly and completely wrong in your eyes, so you have to make up this false doctrine that not one person here has ever advocated.

You don't have to say you agree with us, just stop lying about our position. We can't have an honest debate if you're lying about what we believe. I think I've spent more time addressing this issue alone than I have whether tongues will occur at the Spirit infilling.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

KBTW, why are you so insistent on twisting our words? You can't just say you disagree with us about tongues, you have to pervert what we're saying to conform to what you believe about us, that (according to you) tongues are salvational. No one here has ever said tongues are salvational. No one, that is, except for you.

If you disagree with us, that's one thing, but by distorting what we're saying and trying to create a strawman against us, all you're doing is causing conflict.

I don't know why you can't simply take us at our words, but that - to me - indicates some deep seated hatred or bitterness against what we're saying. It can't just be that we're in disagreement, we have to be utterly and completely wrong in your eyes, so you have to make up this false doctrine that not one person here has ever advocated.

You don't have to say you agree with us, just stop lying about our position. We can't have an honest debate if you're lying about what we believe. I think I've spent more time addressing this issue alone than I have whether tongues will occur at the Spirit infilling.

Got it. So you believe one can be saved and not speak in tongues.