Did everyone?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

In my over 23 yrs. of pastoring, I have seen some people get baptized and speak in tongues and some get baptized and not speak in tongues.

My observation is that some who haven't spoken in tongues have lived a better Christian life than some who have spoken in tongues. (and, obviously, vice versa)

LOL... ever the diplomat! I agree!

[Adino]

If I can keep the focus on Acts 2:38.....

Does the phrase "and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" come as an unconditional promise to those who adhere to the preceding words of the passage?

Have ALL who have repented and been baptized in Jesus Name received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

If we say, NO, then we really do not believe in Acts 2:38 as much as we thought do we?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Good job, freeatlast. You went right to the point.

100% agree that not everyone they have seen repent and be baptized in Jesus name has spoken in tongues YET Acts 2:38 plainly states that those who repent and are baptized SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Everyone who repents and is baptized in Jesus name SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Since all who've repented and have been baptized in Jesus name have not spoken in tongues, it follows that either:

A) The author was in error and NOT ALL who repent and are baptized in Jesus name SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

or...

B) The author was correct and all who repent and are baptized in Jesus name indeed SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but this does not mean they will ALL speak in tongues.

I, personally, choose "B" because I believe Acts 2:38.

If the evidential tongues doctrine is true, why have NOT ALL spoken in tongues who have repented and have been baptized in Jesus name?

They have the promise.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

If I can keep the focus on Acts 2:38.....

Does the phrase "and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" come as an unconditional promise to those who adhere to the preceding words of the passage?

Have ALL who have repented and been baptized in Jesus Name received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

If we say, NO, then we really do not believe in Acts 2:38 as much as we thought do we?

The promise is given it doesn't say WHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are only two reasons folks do not recieve the Holy Ghost.
1. They have not repented.
2. They do not believe.

But ALL speak in tongues when they do.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Adino, if you present that repentance and baptism alone show the infilling of the Holy Ghost, how do you dismiss the argument presented that tongues is evidence of the infilling?

BOOMM, I do not equate Spirit filling with Spirit baptism. I do not see anywhere in the Bible where the phrase "filled with the Holy Ghost" speaks of regeneration and/or salvation. Acts 2:38 does not promise that the person will be "filled with the Holy Ghost," it promises that they will receive the "gift of the Holy Ghost" which taken in context is eternal life. Those who turned back to God would receive LIFE. That tongues may be a sign of Spirit "filling" has nothing to do with Acts 2:38.

Likewise, what do you present for evidence of a person having the infilling?

There are many manifestations of Spirit "filling". BUT, I would say that evidence of the presence of the indwelling Spirit of LIFE is FAITH. He that believeth is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26).

[jrLA]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The promise is given it doesn't say WHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are only two reasons folks do not recieve the Holy Ghost.
1. They have not repented.
2. They do not believe.

But ALL speak in tongues when they do.

Thanks Elder....Very well spoken and plain truth!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The promise is given it doesn't say WHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are only two reasons folks do not recieve the Holy Ghost.
1. They have not repented.
2. They do not believe.

But ALL speak in tongues when they do.

Ah.... so the baptism would have been performed on an unrepentant unbelieving sinner meaning that it would have had no effect at all for those who teach baptismal sin remission. Bro. Epley, do you rebaptize everyone who does not immediately speak in tongues upon their baptism? You are telling me the reason they do not speak in tongues is because they are unrepentant and/or unbelieving which would mean their baptism was meaningless. How long do you give a guy before you say there was something wrong with his heart? Can you do me a favor and show me the passage defining an adequate waiting period while the candidate is in spiritual limbo?

If you take the position that the baptism was indeed valid, then you are taking the position that an unrepentant and unbelieving man can have his sins remitted in baptism whether he repents/believes or not. I don't think you believe this.

If you take the position that the baptism was valid and the person did repent and believe, then we are left with another problem....

Colossians 2:12, at the very least, teaches we are risen with Christ at the time of baptism. How can a person be risen with Christ if he does not have the resurrecting Spirit of Life dwelling in him? Even if you say the time between repentance/faith/baptism and tongues speech is relatively short, any time gap begs the question how a person can be risen with Christ without the Spirit. How can this be?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

Ah.... so the baptism would have been performed on an unrepentant unbelieving sinner meaning that it would have had no effect at all for those who teach baptismal sin remission. Bro. Epley, do you rebaptize everyone who does not immediately speak in tongues upon their baptism? You are telling me the reason they do not speak in tongues is because they are unrepentant and/or unbelieving which would mean their baptism was meaningless. How long do you give a guy before you say there was something wrong with his heart? Can you do me a favor and show me the passage defining an adequate waiting period while the candidate is in spiritual limbo?

If you take the position that the baptism was indeed valid, then you are taking the position that an unrepentant and unbelieving man can have his sins remitted in baptism whether he repents/believes or not. I don't think you believe this.

If you take the position that the baptism was valid and the person did repent and believe, then we are left with another problem....

Colossians 2:12, at the very least, teaches we are risen with Christ at the time of baptism. How can a person be risen with Christ if he does not have the resurrecting Spirit of Life dwelling in him? Even if you say the time between repentance/faith/baptism and tongues speech is relatively short, any time gap begs the question how a person can be risen with Christ without the Spirit. How can this be?

Another one of those theological dilemmas added to the mounting stack .

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Adino

BOOMM, I do not equate Spirit filling with Spirit baptism. I do not see anywhere in the Bible where the phrase "filled with the Holy Ghost" speaks of regeneration and/or salvation. Acts 2:38 does not promise that the person will be "filled with the Holy Ghost," it promises that they will receive the "gift of the Holy Ghost" which taken in context is eternal life. Those who turned back to God would receive LIFE. That tongues may be a sign of Spirit "filling" has nothing to do with Acts 2:38.

There are many manifestations of Spirit "filling". BUT, I would say that evidence of the presence of the indwelling Spirit of LIFE is FAITH. He that believeth is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26).

The devils believe and tremble.


I asekd this in another thread but it fits here- I am curious how you can convince some one to receive The Holy Ghost (Spirit of the Christ) if you don't see it as essential.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Ah.... so the baptism would have been performed on an unrepentant unbelieving sinner meaning that it would have had no effect at all for those who teach baptismal sin remission. Bro. Epley, do you rebaptize everyone who does not immediately speak in tongues upon their baptism? You are telling me the reason they do not speak in tongues is because they are unrepentant and/or unbelieving which would mean their baptism was meaningless. How long do you give a guy before you say there was something wrong with his heart? Can you do me a favor and show me the passage defining an adequate waiting period while the candidate is in spiritual limbo?

If you take the position that the baptism was indeed valid, then you are taking the position that an unrepentant and unbelieving man can have his sins remitted in baptism whether he repents/believes or not. I don't think you believe this.

If you take the position that the baptism was valid and the person did repent and believe, then we are left with another problem....

Colossians 2:12, at the very least, teaches we are risen with Christ at the time of baptism. How can a person be risen with Christ if he does not have the resurrecting Spirit of Life dwelling in him? Even if you say the time between repentance/faith/baptism and tongues speech is relatively short, any time gap begs the question how a person can be risen with Christ without the Spirit. How can this be?

Adino Firstly I baptize in water HE baptizes in the Holy Ghost. I have never knowingly baptized anyone who had not repented however I am man and NOT God thus He knows I do not. The Promise is recieved by faith Gal.3:14 after repenting and being baptized they must believe the Holy Ghost is promised to them. Heb.11:6 All promises are conditioned on when we recieve them by faith.