Receiving The Holy Spirit & Speaking In Tongues

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

No, the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is not the same as the gift of tongues. I'm pretty sure my previous post already addressed that.

Hang on, let me check.

Yep, I definitely wrote that exact same sentence.

1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

How then do you explain these scriptures? There are many different tongues and gifts given. These are gifts given and not the same to each person? So how can one person have the divers kinds of tongues, but another not? How do you determine which tongue gift determines salvation?

And did you answer this question?

One might never speak in tongues, but still be saved? Yes or no?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Scripture??? Where in the scripture does it say a measure of the Spirit is given at repentance and baptism?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Father draws us and no man can come to him unless this happens. How can He draw us without the Spirit?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The scripture doesn't say that anyone had received the Holy Ghost baptism prior to Pentecost. I am not denying God's Spirit working through the OT saints, but they had a different experience. I never said that they received a different Spirit, I said they had a different experience. look back at my post. "John 7:39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

If John and the OT saints experience was not different then what does this mean?

It has to mean something! It is quite obvious the spirit of the Lord was at work in the OT, especially considering the words Isaiah wrote. It seems that the fullness of the spirit could not come until Jesus came himself, but that does not mean that the spirit did not work in the hearts of people before then.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am saying that tongues is evidence not equivocal(that is not the same thing no matter how you think it). Evidence means proof of something.

You are accusing people of saying, "you must speak with tongues when you get the Holy Ghost".

People are actually saying, "You will speak with tongues when you are filled with the Holy Ghost".

What is the difference here? The implication is the same, no matter how you word it! Essentially then, you are still implying that you haven't been filled with the HG until you speak with tongues.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Really? Then what about this passage?

Acts 16: 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


Tell me where in that passage, after being saved, did they speak in tongues?

Tell me, where in that passage did it say they received the Holy Ghost?

[good samaritan]

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Father draws us and no man can come to him unless this happens. How can He draw us without the Spirit?

Where does this say anything about a measure of God's Spirit is given at repentance. Someone being drawn by the Spirit of God and someone being baptized with the Holy Ghost are not the same thing. A person must first be drawn before they can be filled, but it is not the same experience. If the drawing of God is when someone is filled with the Holy Ghost then that is suggesting that people are filled with the Holy Ghost before they repent.

It has to mean something! It is quite obvious the spirit of the Lord was at work in the OT, especially considering the words Isaiah wrote. It seems that the fullness of the spirit could not come until Jesus came himself, but that does not mean that the spirit did not work in the hearts of people before then.

I am not denying the Spirit of God wasn't at work in the OT. The subject here is whether or not tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. My point was that the OT saints did not have the baptism of the Holy Ghost because John 7 says that it had not been poured out.

What is the difference here? The implication is the same, no matter how you word it! Essentially then, you are still implying that you haven't been filled with the HG until you speak with tongues.

If you have not spoken in tongues then you have no proof you where filled with the Holy Ghost. Most of the places in Acts where it doesn't say they spake with tongues specifically, it suggests that people witnessed the Holy Ghost poured out. Simon the Sorcerer wanted the power to fill people the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. It doesn't say they spake with tongues, but what do you suppose was happening? If people where just merely experiencing and inward change that resulted in a long term change of life, then that doesn't make sense to what this sorcerer was witnessing to cause him to covet after.

Again, I am not going to argue with someone and tell them they don't have the Holy Ghost, but the scripture gives no precedence to the Holy Ghost baptism at repentance. Biblically, a person will know they have been filled the Spirit the same way as all others in the book of Acts (they spake with tongues).

[Godsdrummer]

This whole tongues issue, is just a back and forth rehash of the same arguments. But tongues people keep saying tongues is the initial evidence, where does it say that explicitly. It does not. It has been said that they say that because tongues is the only evidence given when someone received the spirit, but that is not true. Not everyone spoke in tongues.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

How does one magnify God and speak with tongues at the same time?

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

How does one speak in tongues and prophesy at the same time?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Tell me, where in that passage did it say they received the Holy Ghost?

It said they were saved. So if they were saved, and there is no mention of HG and tongues, how can this be?

You have backed yourself into a corner.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

How then do you explain these scriptures? There are many different tongues and gifts given. These are gifts given and not the same to each person? So how can one person have the divers kinds of tongues, but another not? How do you determine which tongue gift determines salvation?

And did you answer this question?

One might never speak in tongues, but still be saved? Yes or no?

BUMP for Esaias and Jito.... what is your answer to the question?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

This whole tongues issue, is just a back and forth rehash of the same arguments. But tongues people keep saying tongues is the initial evidence, where does it say that explicitly. It does not. It has been said that they say that because tongues is the only evidence given when someone received the spirit, but that is not true. Not everyone spoke in tongues.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

How does one magnify God and speak with tongues at the same time?

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

How does one speak in tongues and prophesy at the same time?

Exactly. There are too many inconsistencies to the "must speak in tongues to be saved" doctrine for it to be taught as it is in OP.

Far better to teach people that signs follow them that believe and obey, rather than to teach you must have the "sign" of speaking in tongues in order to be saved, which has no specific scriptural mandate.

My point in this discussion is to raise awareness to those who are preaching the gospel to the lost... tell them to be obedient in repentance and baptism in Jesus Name, and then to seek whatever gifts and fruit of the Spirit are available to them, and the Lord will gift as He chooses.

Sometimes gifting happens all at once, and sometimes it doesn't. Who can tell where the wind bloweth? Who can tell what the mind of the Lord has for each individual person? Leave the door open for the Lord to do as He pleases in each life with the gifting of the Spirit.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

It said they were saved. So if they were saved, and there is no mention of HG and tongues, how can this be?

You have backed yourself into a corner.

Actually, it doesn't and I haven't. While I've no doubt they were saved, the Bible never explicitly says they were saved or that they received the Holy Ghost. What you underlined, was the teaching that they would be saved, not that they were saved. The Bible only explicitly states that they were baptized.

[Dordrecht]

Jesus said to wait for the "power from on high".
What's so hard to understand about that?

Every Christian needs to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
It was a command from Jesus.