25 Year Anniversary

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

The tongues are a "gift" and some people receive that gift, and others for some reason, cannot. I have known people who cried at the altar for years seeking the gift of tongues, only to either "make up some words" to get people off their back and feel like they were saved or, just walk out the door and never return, frustrated because the gift was not given, feeling that they could never be saved!

I have seen people walk in off the street, throw their hands in the air and receive the gift of tongues instantly. I have seen people come to an assembly, completely change their life, witness miracles of healing, and miraculous changes in their life, and to take years to receive the gift of tongues. Why?

I don't have all the answers. But I suspect we can find them in 1 Cor. 12:29-31. Some are given certain gifts and others are not... but if you never receive the gift of tongues, that doesn't mean you are not saved.

We all must covet the best gift, which is charity.

I'm just getting the time to respond to your earlier post. I'll use this one since it is further along in the conversation. Esaias made some very good points. I like him here much better than on a political thread.

The Bible talks about two different kinds of tongues. It talks about the tongues we should receive when we are filled the Holy Ghost and it talks about the diverse tongues spoken about in I Cor 12 and 14, which are a gift that not everyone is used in. In my experience, I personally feel they don't pray to be used as Paul instructed.

The Bible never, as you say, specifically declares that there are distinctions between these two different kinds of tongues. However, we can very easily tell the difference between the two when we review the three passages in Acts (2, 10 and 19) that have people speaking in tongues.

In Acts 2, you have 120 people speaking in tongues at the same time. If this happening is other than the initial infilling, then they are violating scripture (I Cor 14:27) by speaking all at once and having no interpretation following. They would need 120 interpretations. If by two or three, they would need at least 40 to 60 interpretations. Being that God is not the author of confusion, I can see this happening is distinct from what is being referred to in Corinth regarding the gifts.

In Acts 10:24 Peter is speaking to around 5 people. They all began to speak in tongues, with no interpretation. The Bible never states that this happening was messages in tongues, which would also go against I Cor 14:27.
Acts 19:6-7 show that twelve people were speaking in tongues. Again, no message, no interpretation, also violating I Cor 14:27.

It is plain to see from these passages in Acts that there is a distinction between the initial infilling and the gifts that we operate in after receiving the Spirit of God. God has chosen to allow me to have many of the gifts, so I feel I can emphatically say there is a difference.

What is the meaning of “diverse” tongues, if the only tongues spoken are to be interpreted? If there was only one use, it wouldn’t be called “diverse”. It allows me to know there are two kinds of tongues – salvation (based on Romans 8:9) and the gift of tongues and interpretation.

Paul also talks about tongues being apart from interpretation. In I Cor 14:5, he states that prophesy is greater than a person speaking in tongues, “except” if he interprets. Because Paul uses the word “except”, he is indicating, very clearly, that it is normal for believers to be able to speak in tongues without an interpretation.

On the point of “charity”. Charity is not a gift, it is a fruit of the spirit. And yes, love covers a multitude of sin, so it is important to seek a clean and pure heart, at all times, in order to be a healthy, functioning and thriving church. Are all people good in every the church? Are all leaders good in every church? No, they weren’t in the NT either. And when your flesh wars against the spirit and the flesh is winning, it is not a pretty sight at all. We shouldn’t be surprised at the ugliness of carnality and pride among people who espouse the truth of the Holy Ghost. The ugliness is the flesh being exposed as not in subjection to Jesus Christ. And we shouldn’t allow the bad example of some to change our view about Biblical truth.

I have also been a bit amazed when people post, like you did, that the question in Acts 2 wasn’t saying, “What must we do to be saved?” No, it doesn’t say that, I agree. However, Peter preached the death, burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:22-26. After the crowd heard the message, they asked, words to effect, “What do we need to do about this?
In Matthew 19; Mark 10; Luke 18, we find Jesus saying that a rich man can hardly make it to heaven. The disciples are “exceedingly amazed” and ask Him, “Who then can be saved?”

So, the point is that the issue of “salvation” is behind everything associated with Jesus Christ, and I don’t think the thought process was any different for those listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

Did they specifically ask, “What must we do to be saved?” No, they didn’t, but it is strongly implied.

I also personally know a woman preacher who preached a message in Spanish, a Spanish family was present, and having understood the plan of salvation, they repented, were baptized and were filled with the Holy Ghost during that service. The woman preacher didn’t understand what she was saying. The Spanish family testified to her after the service what had taken place. God is marvelous and can miraculously reach any person with his Spirit.

God bless, gotta run!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Esaias made some very good points. I like him here much better than on a political thread.

You should like me better there, too, sister, cause I'm the same on all threads.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you believe salvation comes BEFORE faith and repentance, then? Okie dokie.

That's not what I said at all. I had repented and been baptized but had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Where in the world did you think I said you didn't have to have faith or repent?

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I personally have heard Brazilians speak in tongues in English and not know one word in English!

I know of this happening in Africa as well.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Sherri

That's not what I said at all. I had repented and been baptized but had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Where in the world did you think I said you didn't have to have faith or repent?

I'm saying the logical conclusion of your statements is that a person is regenerated and receives the Spirit before they repent or have faith. I never said "you are saying you don't have to have faith or repent".

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Bible talks about two different kinds of tongues. It talks about the tongues we should receive when we are filled the Holy Ghost and it talks about the diverse tongues spoken about in I Cor 12 and 14, which are a gift that not everyone is used in. In my experience, I personally feel they don't pray to be used as Paul instructed.

The Bible never, as you say, specifically declares that there are distinctions between these two different kinds of tongues. However, we can very easily tell the difference between the two when we review the three passages in Acts (2, 10 and 19) that have people speaking in tongues.

In Acts 2, you have 120 people speaking in tongues at the same time. If this happening is other than the initial infilling, then they are violating scripture (I Cor 14:27) by speaking all at once and having no interpretation following. They would need 120 interpretations. If by two or three, they would need at least 40 to 60 interpretations. Being that God is not the author of confusion, I can see this happening is distinct from what is being referred to in Corinth regarding the gifts.

In Acts 10:24 Peter is speaking to around 5 people. They all began to speak in tongues, with no interpretation. The Bible never states that this happening was messages in tongues, which would also go against I Cor 14:27.
Acts 19:6-7 show that twelve people were speaking in tongues. Again, no message, no interpretation, also violating I Cor 14:27.

It is plain to see from these passages in Acts that there is a distinction between the initial infilling and the gifts that we operate in after receiving the Spirit of God. God has chosen to allow me to have many of the gifts, so I feel I can emphatically say there is a difference.

What is the meaning of “diverse” tongues, if the only tongues spoken are to be interpreted? If there was only one use, it wouldn’t be called “diverse”. It allows me to know there are two kinds of tongues – salvation (based on Romans 8:9) and the gift of tongues and interpretation.

Paul also talks about tongues being apart from interpretation. In I Cor 14:5, he states that prophesy is greater than a person speaking in tongues, “except” if he interprets. Because Paul uses the word “except”, he is indicating, very clearly, that it is normal for believers to be able to speak in tongues without an interpretation.

I was actually going to post pretty much the same thing, but you beat me to it.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

On the point of “charity”. Charity is not a gift, it is a fruit of the spirit.

Galations 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

My pastor has made a comment many times, that in his opinion, that verse should be construed that the fruit of the Spirit is just love, and the rest are descriptors of what love is (e.g. love is joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, etc).

I'm not sure if I agree, but it's an interesting thought.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm just getting the time to respond to your earlier post. I'll use this one since it is further along in the conversation. Esaias made some very good points. I like him here much better than on a political thread.

The Bible talks about two different kinds of tongues. It talks about the tongues we should receive when we are filled the Holy Ghost and it talks about the diverse tongues spoken about in I Cor 12 and 14, which are a gift that not everyone is used in. In my experience, I personally feel they don't pray to be used as Paul instructed.

The Bible never, as you say, specifically declares that there are distinctions between these two different kinds of tongues. However, we can very easily tell the difference between the two when we review the three passages in Acts (2, 10 and 19) that have people speaking in tongues.

In Acts 2, you have 120 people speaking in tongues at the same time. If this happening is other than the initial infilling, then they are violating scripture (I Cor 14:27) by speaking all at once and having no interpretation following. They would need 120 interpretations. If by two or three, they would need at least 40 to 60 interpretations. Being that God is not the author of confusion, I can see this happening is distinct from what is being referred to in Corinth regarding the gifts.

In Acts 10:24 Peter is speaking to around 5 people. They all began to speak in tongues, with no interpretation. The Bible never states that this happening was messages in tongues, which would also go against I Cor 14:27.
Acts 19:6-7 show that twelve people were speaking in tongues. Again, no message, no interpretation, also violating I Cor 14:27.

It is plain to see from these passages in Acts that there is a distinction between the initial infilling and the gifts that we operate in after receiving the Spirit of God. God has chosen to allow me to have many of the gifts, so I feel I can emphatically say there is a difference.

What is the meaning of “diverse” tongues, if the only tongues spoken are to be interpreted? If there was only one use, it wouldn’t be called “diverse”. It allows me to know there are two kinds of tongues – salvation (based on Romans 8:9) and the gift of tongues and interpretation.

Paul also talks about tongues being apart from interpretation. In I Cor 14:5, he states that prophesy is greater than a person speaking in tongues, “except” if he interprets. Because Paul uses the word “except”, he is indicating, very clearly, that it is normal for believers to be able to speak in tongues without an interpretation.

On the point of “charity”. Charity is not a gift, it is a fruit of the spirit. And yes, love covers a multitude of sin, so it is important to seek a clean and pure heart, at all times, in order to be a healthy, functioning and thriving church. Are all people good in every the church? Are all leaders good in every church? No, they weren’t in the NT either. And when your flesh wars against the spirit and the flesh is winning, it is not a pretty sight at all. We shouldn’t be surprised at the ugliness of carnality and pride among people who espouse the truth of the Holy Ghost. The ugliness is the flesh being exposed as not in subjection to Jesus Christ. And we shouldn’t allow the bad example of some to change our view about Biblical truth.

I have also been a bit amazed when people post, like you did, that the question in Acts 2 wasn’t saying, “What must we do to be saved?” No, it doesn’t say that, I agree. However, Peter preached the death, burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:22-26. After the crowd heard the message, they asked, words to effect, “What do we need to do about this?
In Matthew 19; Mark 10; Luke 18, we find Jesus saying that a rich man can hardly make it to heaven. The disciples are “exceedingly amazed” and ask Him, “Who then can be saved?”

So, the point is that the issue of “salvation” is behind everything associated with Jesus Christ, and I don’t think the thought process was any different for those listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

Did they specifically ask, “What must we do to be saved?” No, they didn’t, but it is strongly implied.

I also personally know a woman preacher who preached a message in Spanish, a Spanish family was present, and having understood the plan of salvation, they repented, were baptized and were filled with the Holy Ghost during that service. The woman preacher didn’t understand what she was saying. The Spanish family testified to her after the service what had taken place. God is marvelous and can miraculously reach any person with his Spirit.

God bless, gotta run!

I'm just throwing this out there. It's not something I personally believe; rather it's something I see as a point worth considering for validation.

In Acts 2, although no "gift of interpretation of tongues" is mentioned, an interpretation did actually occur, as the people there heard the 120 speak in tongues. They acclaimed and marvelled how these 120 could be able to speak in the languages of these pilgrims to Jerusalem.

The record reads that they heard the 120 speaking on the wondrous works of God.

So while no actual charismata a la 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 took place, vis a vis the "gift of interpretation of tongues", being that they were nonetheless interpreted, and that correctly, could it not be argued that no charismata a la 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 was necessary?

The anecdote about the woman preacher who gave a sermon in Spanish, and a Spanish speaking family all repenting and being saved makes the point, I think, like so:

No one in that meeting, according to the details given above, beside those who actually spoke Spanish, understood the sermon. Is this correct? Then, the woman who preached in Spanish, did it under the charismata of a diverse tongue? Is that not so? She didn't know or speak Spanish, right? Was she out of order, since no one "interpreted" her tongues of Spanish through a Spirit-filled charismata?

Rather, only someone who could understand the words interpreted them, even to the saving of their souls.

As far as Acts 10 is concerned, the text reads that they not only spoke with tongues, they also magnified God. Could it not be said that their magnification of God was the interpretation (if they were merely exercising the charismata of diverse tongues, that is)?

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul makes the case that he that speaks in an unknown tongue ought to pray that he interprets. Couldn't it be said that Cornelius and crew interpreted their own tongues by magnifying God, something done with the voice through a native, understandable to speaker language? If not, then how did Luke know they were magnifying God, if it was likewise in tongues, since "no man understandeth", as Paul writes (1 Corinthians 14:2)?

As far as Acts 19 is concerned, the text reads that they not only spoke with tongues, they also prophesied. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul shows that interpreting tongues through the charismata is equivalent to prophecy, that is, when one legitimately interprets an unknown tongue as given by God through the Spirit, they are in effect, prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:5).

So, could it not be said that the 12 men immersed by Paul, spoke through the gift of diverse tongues, then interpreted them as those Paul recommended interpret their own tongues (from 1 Corinthians 14:14), then, by doing so, effectively, prophesied, just as the text indicates?

Again, I am not offering up my personally held beliefs on the matter; rather I intend to show how there can be additional, or even different ways to see the same passage, and that intelligent, tenable, and reasonable interpretations can be generated by two different people, with neither seemingly having more merit than the other.

The truth is such that, except for the three times mentioned in Acts specifically, and the one time alluded to (Acts 8), and Paul's mentioning of his own prolific glossalalia, we see so many people in Acts becoming believers, being immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all being accepted with the beloved, with no difference made between those who specifically spoke in tongues per the Lukan account, and those who received no mention of doing so per the same account (Lydia comes to mind as a prime example. Apollos as well.).

So for me, there is great latitude in accepting many as brothers and sisters, even if they haven't spoken with tongues.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It is plain to see from these passages in Acts that there is a distinction between the initial infilling and the gifts that we operate in after receiving the Spirit of God. God has chosen to allow me to have many of the gifts, so I feel I can emphatically say there is a difference.

What is the meaning of “diverse” tongues, if the only tongues spoken are to be interpreted? If there was only one use, it wouldn’t be called “diverse”. It allows me to know there are two kinds of tongues – salvation (based on Romans 8:9) and the gift of tongues and interpretation.

PO, thanks for taking the time to respond. I just have one question to your thoughts about the diverse tongues, and there being two separate ones - salvation, and the gift of tongues.

If as you say, there are salvational tongues... then would you agree that the salvational tongue should be the same as the ones that happened on the DOP, and the other accounts?

This is where the problem lies. Because when the "salvational" tongues are given, should they not be the same as happened on the DOP? Should there not be an understanding that the initial evidence of receiving the spirit be a language spoken by the receiver that others can understand? Because that is what happened on the DOP. And if that is how we determine tongues are salvational, shouldn't ALL tongues and receiving of the spirit follow the same example? If this is the logical measuring stick to use (tongues as they came on the DOP), then I don't have the spirit of God, and what I have is something else, because no one has ever understood what I say when I speak in tongues.

So.. this line of reasoning is not logical.

There are too many inconsistencies in the passages of scriptures that we have with tongues, to make any logical conclusion to come to the idea that one is LOST and going to hell if one does not speak in tongues.

Simply because the tongues that are received for the most part, aside from a few events that have been shared here, are people receiving the unknown tongues, and not receiving a tongue that can be understood by the hearer.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

On the point of “charity”. Charity is not a gift, it is a fruit of the spirit. And yes, love covers a multitude of sin, so it is important to seek a clean and pure heart, at all times, in order to be a healthy, functioning and thriving church. Are all people good in every the church? Are all leaders good in every church? No, they weren’t in the NT either. And when your flesh wars against the spirit and the flesh is winning, it is not a pretty sight at all. We shouldn’t be surprised at the ugliness of carnality and pride among people who espouse the truth of the Holy Ghost. The ugliness is the flesh being exposed as not in subjection to Jesus Christ. And we shouldn’t allow the bad example of some to change our view about Biblical truth.

Charity is the more excellent way, as Paul said, I don't think I ever said charity is a gift, that was not my intention. Charity is indeed the sum total of the fruit of the spirit, and again, here we see that Paul's mention of charity (love) and Jesus saying "know them by their love one for another" completely agrees.

The more excellent way is this - that the world above all, would know us by our love one for another. And that is the bottom line. Many times I have seen strife and skirmish over the issue of tongues and salvation among many other other issues, and things can get ugly. (Thankfully we have been able to have a logical discussion here without any of that!).

The bottom line is this... it does not matter if we prophecy, heal, teach, apostleship, have tongues.... charity is the more excellent way, and this is backed up by statements from both Jesus and Paul.

I stand firm on the foundation that since the scriptures are unclear whether you must speak in an unknown language as part of your salvation (remember even Peter never said that - he said, repent, be baptized and receive the gift of the HG - no tongues mentioned here, which would have been the perfect time for him to say that) that I will not tell someone they are not going to heaven if they have sought the gift of tongues and not received.

Since tongues are a gifting... it is up to Jesus to do the gifting. A gift is something you don't earn, you just receive. Why then are there folks who have done every possible thing they can think of to try to receive, and haven't received? This too is another ugly side of the tongues issue.

To sum up what my thoughts are on this... standing on the logical basis of scripture that we have... there are diversities of tongues which some may receive as an initial sign of salvation, and some who desire the gift may not receive, and this cannot be explained, other than it is Jesus who chooses to give the gifts.

I believe the gifts of the spirit should be sought after and that the gift of tongues is a most amazing gift to have. I stand on the three steps of salvation... repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost baptism and would say to all who desire more of Christ... seek after the gifts... but charity above all is the more excellent way.

One thing I will NOT do... is tell someone they are not saved without the gift of tongues, because that cannot be backed up with specific scripture, and one must line up several different scriptures that could have different interpretations, and there is NOT ONE CLEAR scripture indicating that one is not saved unless they speak with tongues.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The truth is such that, except for the three times mentioned in Acts specifically, and the one time alluded to (Acts 8), and Paul's mentioning of his own prolific glossalalia, we see so many people in Acts becoming believers, being immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all being accepted with the beloved, with no difference made between those who specifically spoke in tongues per the Lukan account, and those who received no mention of doing so per the same account (Lydia comes to mind as a prime example. Apollos as well.).

So for me, there is great latitude in accepting many as brothers and sisters, even if they haven't spoken with tongues.

This I agree with. Tongues certainly CAN be an initial sign of receiving, but I certainly did not receive the gift of tongues in the same manner as those on the DOP. So do I have the spirit of God or not? No understands me when I speak in an unknown tongue. If this is the logical reasoning to be used salvational tongues given on the DOP... then a whole lot of people aren't saved, and just the few who received a specific language are. That's where this line of reasoning goes.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

PO, thanks for taking the time to respond. I just have one question to your thoughts about the diverse tongues, and there being two separate ones - salvation, and the gift of tongues.

If as you say, there are salvational tongues... then would you agree that the salvational tongue should be the same as the ones that happened on the DOP, and the other accounts?

This is where the problem lies. Because when the "salvational" tongues are given, should they not be the same as happened on the DOP? Should there not be an understanding that the initial evidence of receiving the spirit be a language spoken by the receiver that others can understand? Because that is what happened on the DOP. And if that is how we determine tongues are salvational, shouldn't ALL tongues and receiving of the spirit follow the same example? If this is the logical measuring stick to use (tongues as they came on the DOP), then I don't have the spirit of God, and what I have is something else, because no one has ever understood what I say when I speak in tongues.

So.. this line of reasoning is not logical.

There are too many inconsistencies in the passages of scriptures that we have with tongues, to make any logical conclusion to come to the idea that one is LOST and going to hell if one does not speak in tongues.

Simply because the tongues that are received for the most part, aside from a few events that have been shared here, are people receiving the unknown tongues, and not receiving a tongue that can be understood by the hearer.

At the outset of the church, you have God gathering the key players together. The devout Jews were from "every nation under the sun". So, in my estimation, I don't think we have people from "every nation under the sun" in our churches when someone receives the Holy Ghost.

If as you say they must be understood as on the Day of Pentecost, then only English and Spanish could be the tongues spoken in my church which wouldn't surprise anyone.

I Cor 14:16, suggests that tongues won't always be understood. In verse 17, Paul states that the person has done well by giving thanks, and in verse 18 he says that he speaks in tongues more than all of them.

The lesson isn't about not speaking in tongues in a public setting, but to excel in the spiritual gifts, as in a crowd of people we want to minister to them in some way by the Spirit of God.

Charity is the more excellent way, as Paul said, I don't think I ever said charity is a gift, that was not my intention. Charity is indeed the sum total of the fruit of the spirit, and again, here we see that Paul's mention of charity (love) and Jesus saying "know them by their love one for another" completely agrees.

The more excellent way is this - that the world above all, would know us by our love one for another. And that is the bottom line. Many times I have seen strife and skirmish over the issue of tongues and salvation among many other other issues, and things can get ugly. (Thankfully we have been able to have a logical discussion here without any of that!).

The bottom line is this... it does not matter if we prophecy, heal, teach, apostleship, have tongues.... charity is the more excellent way, and this is backed up by statements from both Jesus and Paul.

I stand firm on the foundation that since the scriptures are unclear whether you must speak in an unknown language as part of your salvation (remember even Peter never said that - he said, repent, be baptized and receive the gift of the HG - no tongues mentioned here, which would have been the perfect time for him to say that) that I will not tell someone they are not going to heaven if they have sought the gift of tongues and not received.

Since tongues are a gifting... it is up to Jesus to do the gifting. A gift is something you don't earn, you just receive. Why then are there folks who have done every possible thing they can think of to try to receive, and haven't received? This too is another ugly side of the tongues issue.

To sum up what my thoughts are on this... standing on the logical basis of scripture that we have... there are diversities of tongues which some may receive as an initial sign of salvation, and some who desire the gift may not receive, and this cannot be explained, other than it is Jesus who chooses to give the gifts.

I believe the gifts of the spirit should be sought after and that the gift of tongues is a most amazing gift to have. I stand on the three steps of salvation... repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost baptism and would say to all who desire more of Christ... seek after the gifts... but charity above all is the more excellent way.

One thing I will NOT do... is tell someone they are not saved without the gift of tongues, because that cannot be backed up with specific scripture, and one must line up several different scriptures that could have different interpretations, and there is NOT ONE CLEAR scripture indicating that one is not saved unless they speak with tongues.

Of course Charity is the more excellent way. You can't operate the gifts under God's direction properly if love is not the motive. You can't present the life of a true disciple if love is not the motive - love covers a multitude of sin. Unless we are in God's presence to fill us again with the wonder of His love, it is hard to get up and be a proper minister of the Gospel bearing the fruit of the spirit. None of this changes because a person, group of people or a whole church fails at representing the Gospel properly. None of that matters to me. It is about me and God. I won't be standing at the White Throne judgment with anyone but me and God Almighty.

I remember a time that I had given a woman a Bible study. She repented, was baptized and was seeking to be filled with the Holy Ghost - several times at church. I was standing to the side and God spoke this to me, "I can't fill an old vessel with new wine." I talked to her about searching her heart regarding anything she might be holding onto that wasn't important to anyone but herself. After a time she was filled, and so I believe she went through a personal process of really being serious about wanting God in her life. It is my understanding, from this experience, that perhaps some people don't understand what true repentance really entails, no matter how hard it appears they are crying at the altar. There are some things that people are still hanging onto in their hearts, yet, not admitting that openly to anyone in the room.

I had repented and was baptized and prayed for the Holy Ghost for about 3 months. One night I stayed home from church because I was really tired of this little home mission work with their petty issues. I was 25 years old and who cares about all that junk, right? Anyway, I was at home talking to the Lord and he showed me how I was really straddling the fence. I wanted to live for God, but I also wanted a little bit of the world I came from. After I made that right and made my commitment firm, I received the Holy Ghost.

I also recall an evangelist sharing his experience. He prayed so much at the altar that people were sick of praying for him. LOL! One service he was at his pew, on the floor praying by himself and God showed him something he had in his home that he needed to get rid of in order to be filled with the Holy Ghost. He didn't share what that was. Perhaps we would have thought it was silly, but it was something that stood between him giving his whole heart to God. Anyway, after he got rid of whatever the thing was, he was filled.

Maybe some of us are just hard headed. I don't know. LOL! But, all three of those accounts have the same shared story. Repentance is a very serious issue. It shouldn't be taken lightly. We say Repent and be.... as though Repentance is all that easy. I don't think it is easy at all. At least for some. It's more than just a word. It really means something that holds your eternity in it's hands.

Anyway, after this lengthy response...I have to get this in while I have the time (lol)...there are three things I see that are important to me:

1) I want the scripture to show me what the Holy Ghost is, besides the Spirit of God. I get that answer in Acts 10:45-46 - The disciples knew the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles, "because" they heard them speak in tongues.

2) The Bible says that you can find salvation and be saved by:

Repentance - Mark 1:4 - John came preaching repentance for the remission of sins. Romans 10:10 says that "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Baptism - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Mark 16:16

Side note: Mark 16:16 tells me that repentance ALONE does not save you.

Holy Ghost infilling: Now that I know from the Disciples account of recognizing when someone is filled with the Spirit - for they heard them speak in tongues - Romans 8:9 tells me that I must have that same Spirit to be adopted into the Kingdom of God or I am "none of His" - the earnest or down payment of my inheritance. Ephesians 1:13-14

That sums up my view. I don't take into account someone who hasn't been filled with His spirit for years or ever - I look at the Word of God. Some people's experiences line up with the Word and some people's don't. If they don't line up, I don't pay attention to it or try to figure it out. I don't know a person's heart, so how could I know the answer?

God bless!