For those that left the UPC...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Acts 11:15

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


When was "at the beginning" was Peter refering to???

Acts 2:4.

And, excellent point in referring to the "BEGINNING." If Acts 2:4 is the beginning, then anything before that was a figure.

Also, note that Peter said the 120 spoke in tongues because Jesus was at the right hand. he was not at the right hand throne when on earth breathing on people.

Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

I believe no one was Spirit filled when Jesus breathed on them.

I think we all need to research more than just comparing Jesus breathing on people and Acts 2:4, and get into the reasons Peter spoke about, such as the right hand throne seating of Jesus being cause for the tongues.

One can get on a band-wagon of throwing out everything the UPC ever taught when one leaves the UPC, but not everything they taught was wrong. It's not wrong just because it is UPC. Most all Spirit filled people believe in tongues as initial evidence. Kenneth Hagin wrote an awesome booklet on the issue. My opinion personally is that folks are not researching enough of the issues involved in Peter's sermon when they get away from tongues as the initial evidence, primarily the Right Hand seating issue.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Then where does one stop and the other began, too many that profess to having the holy ghost based on speaking in tongues don't have the fruits to show for it.

Hi bro.,

No one has ever said anything about tongues as evidence except for INITIAL evidence. That has nothing to do with ongoing evidence. So I think it is easy to see where it begins and ends. Initial means the first moment. Nothing more nor later.

And fruit takes time to grow. Just like on a tree. But all that tongues show is that someone has been Spirit filled. It says nothing about their present state with the Lord, and I never heard anyone say it ever did.

This is what I think James was talking about then he said you say you have faith I will show you my faith by my works. I don't think the works he is speaking of are the works that so many three steppers call the steps of salvation. But the manifesting of the works or fruit of the spirit. The works he then list confirm this in my mind.

The works James spoke of are obviously not the steps of salvation in Acts 2:38. but the reason Acts 2:38'ers, like myself, appeal to James is because James used a principle. A principle can apply to several things. Anyway, I see no problem with your demand for fruit that manifests God in us. But I also do not see how that takes away from tongues being the INITIAL evidence of Spirit baptism. It flat-out was initial evidence in Acts 10, and there is no other scripture anywhere the refers to anything else about INITIAL evidence.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hi bro.,

No one has ever said anything about tongues as evidence except for INITIAL evidence. That has nothing to do with ongoing evidence. So I think it is easy to see where it begins and ends. Initial means the first moment. Nothing more nor later.

And fruit takes time to grow. Just like on a tree. But all that tongues show is that someone has been Spirit filled. It says nothing about their present state with the Lord, and I never heard anyone say it ever did.



The works James spoke of are obviously not the steps of salvation in Acts 2:38. but the reason Acts 2:38'ers, like myself, appeal to James is because James used a principle. A principle can apply to several things. Anyway, I see no problem with your demand for fruit that manifests God in us. But I also do not see how that takes away from tongues being the INITIAL evidence of Spirit baptism. It flat-out was initial evidence in Acts 10, and there is no other scripture anywhere the refers to anything else about INITIAL evidence.

Initial evidence to whom?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Initial evidence to whom?

In Acts 10 it was initial evidence to the other believers.

Act 10:45-46 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. ...

It's like TONGUES are a sign to unbelievers when it is the GIFT of tongues, in 1 Cor 14, but a sign to believers when it is initial evidence to believers.

[mfblume]

I look at tongues as initial evidence in the way that God created. There was GOD SPEAKING in Genesis 1. And tongues are the Spirit giving utterance, and involving us as speaking what utterance we are given. So we are involved with a NEW CREATION. God is saying LET THERE BE in our tongues! As Truthseeker insightfully noted, the disciples referred to Acts 2:4 as THE BEGINNING. Reminds me of Genesis 1. A NEW BEGINNING. A new creation.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hi bro.,

No one has ever said anything about tongues as evidence except for INITIAL evidence. That has nothing to do with ongoing evidence. So I think it is easy to see where it begins and ends. Initial means the first moment. Nothing more nor later.

And fruit takes time to grow. Just like on a tree. But all that tongues show is that someone has been Spirit filled. It says nothing about their present state with the Lord, and I never heard anyone say it ever did.

The works James spoke of are obviously not the steps of salvation in Acts 2:38. but the reason Acts 2:38'ers, like myself, appeal to James is because James used a principle. A principle can apply to several things. Anyway, I see no problem with your demand for fruit that manifests God in us. But I also do not see how that takes away from tongues being the INITIAL evidence of Spirit baptism. It flat-out was initial evidence in Acts 10, and there is no other scripture anywhere the refers to anything else about INITIAL evidence.

Very good, Bro. Blume!

In Acts 6, when the twelve asked that seven men of honest report, FULL
of the Holy Ghost AND wisdom, be chosen to serve tables, serving the widows.
Stephen was chosen as one of these. In vs 8 , "And Stephen, full of faith
and power did great wonders and miracles among the people. vs 9. Then
there arose certain of the (Jewish) synagogue, disputing with Stephen.

vs10. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which
he spake. So the Jews stirred up false accusations, etc. and came against
Stephen and took hold of him and took him to the council. Stephen wound
up preaching to the whole council. Those all those who sat in the council,
looked stedfastly on him. They saw his face as it had been the face of an
angel. (Glod's glory shining out). God's glory was now (since Jesus' seating).

At the end of chapter 7, they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying,
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Could it be that Stephen' s spirit was received and was prepared to be put
in a young man who stood nearby, whose name was Saul. In chap.22, Paul,
who was Saul earlier, is before the council, this time giving his testimony of
how he had been before his conversion. "And I said, Lord, they know that I
imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And
when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and
consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And
he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And
they listened to Paul unto he said that, and they lifted up their voices and
demanded that he be taken away from the earth. That he wasn't fit to live.

As Stephen knelt down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge and fell asleep. What came out his mouth was similiar to what
Jesus has spoken from the cross before He died. Now it is after Pentecost
and Stephen is full of the same Spirit that cried from the Cross. Jesus said
"Father, forgive them, before he died. Now we see Stephen, full of the
same Spirit, saying in a loud voice LORD JESUS, lay not this sin to their
charge!

Falla39

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

In Acts 10 it was initial evidence to the other believers.

Act 10:45-46 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. ...

It's like TONGUES are a sign to unbelievers when it is the GIFT of tongues, in 1 Cor 14, but a sign to believers when it is initial evidence to believers.

I'm certainly not arguing against tongues accompanying the infilling of the Holy Ghost many times, but I question if it's present in each and ever instance.

The teaching that tongues must accompany each and every infilling of the Holy Ghost promotes the unscriptural practice of 'seeking' for the Holy Ghost (tongues), which translates into individuals begging God for forgiveness. That's contrary to basic bible teaching concerning the giving of the Holy Ghost. Many times the individual is seeking for tongues because of the teaching that they aren't saved unless they 'get' the Holy Ghost with the evidence, to them, being when they speak in tongues. They've repented, been baptized, living the standards, glorifying God, attending church, but go, unscripturally, to the altar night after night seeking those tongues. That's their evidence, their comfort, that they've really 'gotten it'.

I do agree that tongues accompanied the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the Acts 10 reference, but there are other examples where this did not occur, such as in Acts 8......

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Here, the initial filling of the Holy Ghost, with no tongues, occurred with the laying on of Peter and John's hands. Scripturally, tongues do not always accompany the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost.

If scripture were followed, there would never be those in the altar seeking for the Holy Ghost due to the error of teaching that one must speak in tongues to be saved.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'm certainly not arguing against tongues accompanying the infilling of the Holy Ghost many times, but I question if it's present in each and ever instance.

The teaching that tongues must accompany each and every infilling of the Holy Ghost promotes the unscriptural practice of 'seeking' for the Holy Ghost (tongues), which translates into individuals begging God for forgiveness. That's contrary to basic bible teaching concerning the giving of the Holy Ghost. Many times the individual is seeking for tongues because of the teaching that they aren't saved unless they 'get' the Holy Ghost with the evidence, to them, being when they speak in tongues. They've repented, been baptized, living the standards, glorifying God, attending church, but go, unscripturally, to the altar night after night seeking those tongues. That's their evidence, their comfort, that they've really 'gotten it'.

I do agree that tongues accompanied the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the Acts 10 reference, but there are other examples where this did not occur, such as in Acts 8......

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Here, the initial filling of the Holy Ghost, with no tongues, occurred with the laying on of Peter and John's hands. Scripturally, tongues do not always accompany the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost.

If scripture were followed, there would never be those in the altar seeking for the Holy Ghost due to the error of teaching that one must speak in tongues to be saved.

When a person realizes they are sinners, and God convicts their heart, they
REPENT! You don't seek for "tongues". You seek for the HOLY GHOST and
when the Spirit comes in, the language of the Spirit comes out! The Spirit is
speaking from within your intermost being. The Spirit is doing the speaking or
giving the utterance (sound).

It is telling that some on this forum evidently have not received the Holy Spirit
of Promise. Words are telling! What's in our heart comes out of our mouths,
evidenced by our words!

Not to offend! Just speaking the truth in love, if you can receive it!

Falla39

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Falla39

When a person realizes they are sinners, and God convicts their heart, they
REPENT!

I agree

Originally Posted by Falla39

You don't seek for "tongues". You seek for the HOLY GHOST and
when the Spirit comes in, the language of the Spirit comes out!

Where is "seeking for the Holy Ghost" taught in scripture? Book, chapter and verse please.

And yes, those individuals who go to the altar and seek are seeking for tongues....it's all about tongues. Without that proof, they think themselves unforgiven and bound for hell. It's all about tongues in the unscriptural behavior of going to the altar and seeking and begging, night after night. Nothing in the bible about that type of salvation plan, brother.

Originally Posted by Falla39

The Spirit is speaking from within your intermost being. The Spirit is doing the speaking or giving the utterance (sound).

I agree.

Originally Posted by Falla39

It is telling that some on this forum evidently have not received the Holy Spirit of Promise. Words are telling! What's in our heart comes out of our mouths, evidenced by our words!

Not to offend! Just speaking the truth in love, if you can receive it!

Falla39

Some like who? Name names.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'm certainly not arguing against tongues accompanying the infilling of the Holy Ghost many times, but I question if it's present in each and ever instance.

All we ever have by way of evidence is found in Acts 10 and is tongues. Again, we do not have any other indication of how a person knows one is initially filled with the Spirit. So I say we should stick to that word in the bible.

The teaching that tongues must accompany each and every infilling of the Holy Ghost promotes the unscriptural practice of 'seeking' for the Holy Ghost (tongues), which translates into individuals begging God for forgiveness. That's contrary to basic bible teaching concerning the giving of the Holy Ghost.

People may abuse a circumstance and propose a begging type of scenario, , but that does not mean the circumstance is not real. We are meant to ask for the Holy ghost, but not to get into begging. My own experience saw me without the Spirit baptism with tongues for many months after I got hold of God. But I came to find out that I was continuing in sins and would not admit they were sins. I am not saying all who do not speak in tongues are in that boat, but such things are one of many reasons people do not receive the Spirit.

But, to me, it is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to say that tongues are not the initial evidence of Spirit baptism because some circles that believe this find people begging for forgiveness. We must have SOLID WORD for what we do and do not believe, and there is no WORD saying the sort of thing that if people mistaken the issue and begin begging for forgiveness that the doctrine they heard is wrong.

Many times the individual is seeking for tongues because of the teaching that they aren't saved unless they 'get' the Holy Ghost with the evidence, to them, being when they speak in tongues.

Again, misunderstanding a seeking for tongues instead of the Holy Ghost does not mean tongues are not the initial evidence of the Spirit baptism.

They've repented, been baptized, living the standards, glorifying God, attending church, but go, unscripturally, to the altar night after night seeking those tongues. That's their evidence, their comfort, that they've really 'gotten it'.

I do agree that tongues accompanied the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the Acts 10 reference, but there are other examples where this did not occur, such as in Acts 8......

You cannot say it did not occur. It simply says neither way.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Here, the initial filling of the Holy Ghost, with no tongues, occurred with the laying on of Peter and John's hands. Scripturally, tongues do not always accompany the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost.

but Simon saw something that amazed him so as to want to purchase the power, since he already saw devils cast out and miracles. Many scholars agree this had to be tongues.

If scripture were followed, there would never be those in the altar seeking for the Holy Ghost due to the error of teaching that one must speak in tongues to be saved.

I disagree. You have circumstantial evidence, that's all. We need word. And the only Word we have is Acts 10 making tongues initial evidence.