The Initial Physical Evidence

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Just some thoughts:

Conception means a seed has been planted and under the proper

or right conditions, in time there will be a birth. The mother should

be careful to nurture this seed by taking proper care of herself and

this "burden" that is growing inside her. In the fulness of time there

will be "labour pains" and as this progresses, travail (groanings) and

perhaps weeping. About the time the mother feels she cannot bear

anymore pain, suddenly there is a bursting forth of water and blood,

and sweet deliverance. What a refreshing!! But wait, the mother waits!!

My baby is out but is it alive! I want to hear that cry!!! Did something

go wrong in my carrying my child. Is it still-born. Did it not form properly.

Please let me hear my baby's cry so I will know it is ALIVE!!!! Then a

cry bursts forth and the mother knows her child has been born ALIVE!!!

She has heard a certain sound, a SIGN which tells her her baby is ALIVE!

Now, in the spiritual, "seed" is planted by faith in the Word of God. It is

conceived and nurtured and as this "burden" is carried, in the fulness of

time, there should be a point of travail, perhaps weeping, groanings and

in time there is sweet deliverance! As the "mother, church" that is giving

birth to this "child" realizes this child has been delivered, she listens for a

certain "sound". She wants to know that this is a LIVE birth. Suddenly there

is a sound that lets her (church, mother) know that it is indeed a LIVE

birth. No, it is not the cry of a natural birth, but it is the cry of a spiritual,

because that cry is the language of the Spirit!! The mother (church) knows

by that certain sound that this "child" has been "born again" because this

"man-child" is speaking their Father's language!!

Jesus said in John 3, that except a MAN be born of water and

and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Is not the

water (water baptism) and the Spirit (spirit baptism). And would he not

began to speak the language of the Spirit when he enters into the

kingdom of God (Spirit). God is a Spirit! If you come into this world,

you would expect to speak the language of that family or father!

These thoughts are not to offend or be in agreement or disagreement

with anyone. They are for sincere dialogue.

Blessings,

Falla39

Awesome analogy! I've never heard it explained better!

Blessings, Rhoni

[SDG]

You guys ... Freeatlast and Rhoni ... really catch on quick.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

You guys ... Freeatlast and Rhoni ... really catch on quick.

Thank you,

Blessings to all my brothers and sisters,

Falla39

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

Someone has described some of the different terms like this

Filled is a quantitative term to indicate the person has received as much Holy Spirit as it can contain

baptism means that the recipient has been immersed, saturated, overwhelmed in the Holy Spirit

gift refers to the nature of the transaction, it is a gift, not a reward

receive refers to making room for or formally accepting

Sam, thank you for these definitions. All of these terms, received, filled, baptism, gift are scripturally used to describe the outpouring of God's Spirit upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. They describe exactly the same experience.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

I think most folks believe that the followers of Jesus were saved. He appeared to over 500 believers after his resurrection. Paul still referred to them as "brethren" twenty-five years later when he wrote the letters we call 1 Corinthians in our NT (1 Cor 15:6). Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the Gospel but told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. He compared this empowerment to a baptism similar to the water baptism they had experienced either under John or under His ministry. About 120 of them were filled with or baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).

Sam, I appreciate your response. I wouldn't say the disciples were saved according to the new birth prior to Christ being taken up for a couple of reasons.

1)They did not have the Spirit of God within them. Joh 14:16-17, Joh 7:39, Ac 1:4, Ro 8:9, Joh 3:5 Why would the disciples need further power if the Spirit of God was within them already by faith?

2)Paul calling the believers brethren in Corinthians is not a surprise if we assume they were all born again of the water and the Spirit. The question is what does it mean to be born again?

3)As for anyone who was baptized under John's baptism, I would think they were rebaptized just as in Acts 19.

On the day of Pentecost in response to Peter's preaching about 3000 folks received Jesus and were baptized (Acts 2:41).

In Acts 8 the folks in Samaria believed the message of Philip and were baptized in water. Later the Apostles John and Peter laid hands on them and ministered the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) to these believers.

In Acts 8, Philip preached to an Ethiopian Eunuch who then asked to be baptised in water. Philip made sure that he was a believer before he agreed to baptize him. He said, "If you believe with all your heart you may (be baptized)" The Eunuch said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The record continues by saying that he gave orders that the chariot stop, then both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water "and he baptized him, and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the Eunuch and the angel of the Lord snatched Philip away." Acts 8:35-39.

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Sam, what translation are you reading from? Where does it say the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the Eunuch?

In Acts 9, Saul was on his way to Damascus to persecute the saints. Jesus appeared to him and Saul hit the ground. When he asked, Who are you, Lord?" the Lord (YHWH) said "I am Jesus." Saul believed in the resurrection and confessed Him as Lord. He said, "Lord, what do you want me to do?" Three days after this conversion experience, a disciple name Ananias came in to him and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came has sent me that you might receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Acts 9:1-18. Afterwards, Saul was baptized in water.

I agree with you that Paul believed and confessed Jesus Christ on the Damascus road, but he didn't receive the Spirit at that time and without being born of the Spirit or having the Spirit of Christ in us, we are none of His. Without drinking of that one Spirit we aren't part of the body of Christ, His church. Saul waited 3 days to receive the Spirit and be baptized in water to have his sins washed away.Ac 22:16

In Acts 10 (approximately A.D. 38) we read about Peter preaching to several Gentiles. As Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, those Gentiles believed and as a result of their belief/conversion the Holy Spirit fell upon them (Acts 10:37-48). Peter then commanded water baptism. The experience that happened to Cornelius and his household is referred to by Peter as "the same gift as He (God) gave us" (Acts 11:17) and also as a baptism in the Spirit (Acts 11:16). The Jewish brethren rejoiced because the Gentiles had received life through their repentance (Acts 11:18) . About 11 years later, Peter told about that incident and said that God had purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:8-9).

The Jews with Peter knew Cornelius and His household were filled or baptized with the Spirit because they heard them speak in tongues as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. If they had not spoken in tongues, Peter would never have known the Gentiles were filled with the Spirit. Tongues is a sign and a sound given by God when He fills someone with his Spirit.

Sam, the verse "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" has me stumped. If our sins are remitted/forgiven and washed away by the blood of the lamb 1Jo 1:7, Re 1:5, Tit 3:5, 1Pe 1:22, Heb 9:22, Acts 2:38 then how does faith purify our hearts? I would think it would be faith and the blood or faith in the blood purified their hearts, but it doesn't say either of those things. Is purifying the heart different from the washing/ cleansing of sin we experience when we call on the name of the Lord in water baptism?

In Acts 19:1-6, approximately 23 years after Pentecost Paul found disciples in Ephesus who did not know about the NT message. He preached Jesus to them. As a result of their conversion/salvation/regeneration experience they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Paul laid his hands on them and ministered the HGB. It is recorded that those 12 or so folks spoke with tongues and prophesied when the Holy Spirit came upon them. We don't know if all of them spoke with tongues and prophesied or if some spoke with tongues and some prophesied.

I agree they were converted, but saved and regenerated, not so sure. How could they be saved and regenerated without the Spirit of God in them which comes through Spirit baptism?

These are the standard places where we Apostolics/Pentecostals/Charismatics go to illustrate the HGB. In each case it seems (at least to me) that there is a work of God in the hearts of the people (some would call it salvation or regeneration or conversion) before the HGB experience. There are other cases such as in Philippi (approximately summer of A.D. 50) where it is recorded that God opened a person's heart and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14-15) and where the jailer and his family believe (Acts 16:31-34) and were baptized. There is no record as to whether these folks later received the HGB or whether they did not. In Corinth (fall of A.D. 51) it says that many of them heard, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:11-17).

I'm not saying there is no such experience as a baptism in the Holy Spirit, nor am I saying that speaking with tongues is not associated with that HGB. All I'm saying is that (in my opinion) there was a conversion or salvation experience and it was followed by a water baptism experience and a HGB experience. (and thusly they fulfilled Acts 2;38)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. To be saved, a person must be indwelled with the Spirit of God. For me to believe as you do, I would need someone to show me in the word of God that a believer receives the Holy Ghost when they believe without any visible or audible sign. Going through the conversions, you have not proved this. And though some conversion examples in Acts only mention faith and water baptism, you cannot exclude or include that that person has the Spirit if the scripture was silent.

Why do you think in Acts 19:2 Paul asked the disciples this question, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? If it is understood that all who believe on Christ have the Spirit of Christ automatically upon faith then this question is not necessary. It is redundant. If someone had asked you after you believed and made a confession of faith if you had received the Holy Ghost since you believed, what would that lead you to think?

[Michael The Disciple]

I dont think people just automatically receive the Spirit with no witness. Looking again at this portion of scripture:

8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 8:16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. Acts 8:14-16

Here is the BIG question.

How was it known the Samaritans had NOT received the Holy Ghost?

Please answer?

[Michael The Disciple]

Concerning Acts 2:4 Acts 8:14-17 Acts 10:45-46 Acts 19:2-6 Acts 9:17

One Pentecostal writer proclaims:

These are the five recorded cases of persons actually receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost in the New Testament Church. There are no other cases recorded -- these are all! We will learn from these, or not at all. There are no others to which we can appeal.

This is pretty strong proof of the initial evidence doctrine.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I dont think people just automatically receive the Spirit with no witness. Looking again at this portion of scripture:

8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 8:16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. Acts 8:14-16

Here is the BIG question.

How was it known the Samaritans had NOT received the Holy Ghost?

Please answer?

The BIG question seems to be when does justification happen and is justification the same as salvation? Many here question how it can be possible that if remission of sins occurs at water baptism, how can someone be baptized in the HG if they are still in their sins. No one from the PAJC camp has answered this question.(as far as I know)

On the other hand no one from the PCI camp has adequately from scripture answered when does a person receive the indwelling of the HG? I can't find any verses that say it is at initial faith and repentence or even that remission of sins is at initial faith and repentance except one. Ac 15:9 Which underwhelmingly scant compared to the verses on being cleansed at baptism, baptism saving us, and Acts 2:38.

Sabellius is the only one I have read who believes justification is at faith but it is not the same as salvation. I may have missed it but he hasn't expounded on why he believes this. I'd like to know his reasons

Looks like I have some studying and praying to do.

[davidkc]

Can I post what I have just put onto a similar thread at GNC?

The way I see it, there are two fundamentally different views.

View One: Tongues are necessary for salvation
One view takes the 'default' position as the doctrine that tongues are necessary for one to have the Spirit and be saved.

This view takes as normative for all Christians the events in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, interpreted in a certain way. Acts 8 and 19 are used as proof that ‘belief alone’ is insufficient, because the people had to have hands laid on them before they received the Spirit. Acts 2 and 10 are thought of as normative in the sense that all believers today are expected to have that kind of experience, a ‘filling’ accompanied by tongues, when they receive the Spirit.

This view then reads into all the occurences in Acts where it is not described that people spoke in tongues, and say 'they must have spoken in tongues, but the scripture does not record it'.

This view says that Paul et al assumed when writing the epistles that the readers knew and believed the doctrine, hence no need to mention it.
This view asks for hard evidence to disprove the doctrine.

It is assumed that the doctrine is true, unless there is real, definitive, cast iron scriptural proof to the contrary.

I would assume that most apostolics would take this line.
This is what I believed when I became an apostolic (from an Anglican background).

View Two: Salvation does not necessarily require tongues
The other view takes the 'default' position that biblical salvation need not require a person to have spoken in tongues. Obviously there are then the questions about ‘when’ salvation occurs, whether at faith, repentance, baptism or a combination of these. But just for the moment leave those questions aside.

This view looks for evidence to prove the doctrine, not to disprove it.
According to this view, such a doctrine, which seemingly condemns many millions of confessing Christians to hell because they never spoke in tongues, must have cast iron proof from scripture if we are to accept it.

This view looks in vain for explicit teaching of the doctrine in the epistles or in the gospels. Mark 16:17 is often cited, but as I said earlier, it only cites tongues as one of the signs that follow a believer. Jesus says nothing about tongues being necessary.


My position
I have reluctantly come round to the second view. After 3 years in the UPC and accepting everything I was told, I began to question the basis of the doctrine. I saw that there were saints who had been in church for many years, faithfully serving the Lord, and who still had not spoken in tongues. They believed that they had not received the Holy Ghost and that they were not saved. Every altar call, they went forward.

I searched the Bible, and found that it said nothing about two classes of believer, or two classes of salvation (‘first class’ for those who have spoken in tongues and ‘second class’ for those who have not). According to the Bible, you are either in the Book of Life or you are not. There is no ‘in between’.

I found that nobody in the UPC could answer my questions. Rather there seemed to a tendency to read the doctrine into scripture. Nobody seemed prepared to answer my questions about the status of those saints who had not spoken in tongues. The subject seemed embarrassing to many.

When I asked about the many millions of non-apostolic Christians, living or dead, who had never spoken in tongues, there was often an attempt to skate around the issue. Very few people seemed to be prepared to come out and say ‘If they have not spoken in tongues, they are not saved’.

I thought to myself that this is completely wrong. If this is our doctrine, why are we afraid to preach it? Why are we unwilling to think through what it means? Do we really believe that only we apostolics, and only those of us who have spoken in tongues, are going to heaven and the rest to hell.

But I have feel I have accepted the second view reluctantly. I do not claim to have the answers to the obvious questions such as 'OK, when is the Spirit received?’ I cannot answer definitively about the place of baptism, the Jesus Name formula.

It just seems to me that the doctrine that you have to speak in tongues to be saved seems to have a weak scriptural foundation.

I see the only evidence for the doctrine lies in Acts 8 and 19, because those passages show believers receiving the Spirit some time after belief, and so tend to contradict the main alternative to the doctrine which is that the Spirit is received at conversion.

Acts 2 and 10 only show speaking in tongues accompanying the receiving of the Spirit. As it see it now, they do not provide evidence that tongues must accompany receiving the Spirit.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The BIG question seems to be when does justification happen and is justification the same as salvation? Many here question how it can be possible that if remission of sins occurs at water baptism, how can someone be baptized in the HG if they are still in their sins. No one from the PAJC camp has answered this question.(as far as I know)

On the other hand no one from the PCI camp has adequately from scripture answered when does a person receive the indwelling of the HG? I can't find any verses that say it is at initial faith and repentence or even that remission of sins is at initial faith and repentance except one. Ac 15:9 Which underwhelmingly scant compared to the verses on being cleansed at baptism, baptism saving us, and Acts 2:38.

Sabellius is the only one I have read who believes justification is at faith but it is not the same as salvation. I may have missed it but he hasn't expounded on why he believes this. I'd like to know his reasons

Looks like I have some studying and praying to do.

Gal. 3:2 The apostle Paul was grieved with those who thought they earned the spirit. Let me paraphrase. "Galatians, please let me know, just how did you got the Holy Ghost? Did you recieve it by any good thing you did, OR BY HEARING THE GOSPEL AND HAVING FAITH?"

Now I know you'll say that all he was speaking to had spoke in tongues. That is an assumption that has no proof in scripture.

Rememeber Faith cometh by hearing. The galatians were reminded that they had heard the gospel, believed the gospel and had thereby received the spirit by faith.