All About GOD

All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

does bible consistently show that when people FIRST recieve Holy Spirit they will speak in tongues?

this topic is controversial so lets get what bible says.. many people point out 1 cor 12 and 14 showing that Not all speak in tongues to prove that not everyone will speak in tongues when they recieve the Holy SPIRIT to dwell in them for salvation. the only problem wiht using those scriptures is that is will contradict what happened in acts 8, 10, and 19. because the instructions for USING GIFT OF TONGUES was that 2 at MOST 3 should speak in tongues.. one at a time and there MUST be interpreter.. therefore in those chapters we obviously see that was not the case because THEY ALL spoke in tongues.. and didnt have an interpreter let alone who would he be interpreting it for.. in acts 19 paul was there.. he wouldnt allow them to be out of order and go against his own instruction.. so therefore we must conclude ther are DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS of speaking in tongues.. could one of the functions be to SHOW PROOF one has now recieved the holy spirit? how can we rule this out.. now i spoke in tongues when recieved holy spirit for first time, but i do not have the gift of speaking in tongues in the church to deliver message.. two different functions.. now i have prayed and began to speak in tongues a few times but not all the time.. so how can we disclaim the evidence of speaking in tongues

Views: 2213

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on April 6, 2009 at 8:28pm
Greetings Greg,

Regarding your topic;

A little background on me before I address your topic and the Scriptures you point out. I usually do not like to use me, but in this context I must. I pastor in a charismatic church. I received the filling of the Holy Spirit in 1992, but did not speak in tongues until 2002. The 1992 experience was genuine and 2002 did not change it or add to it other than employing the gift of tongues. I believe in the gift and its various uses. I do not believe in it as the evidence. Evidence defined as “Those who do not speak in tongues are not filled with the Spirit.” On the opposite side of that equation we understand that no one can speak in (true) tongues unless they are filled with the Spirit of God, with one clause being added. God can do what God wants to do at anytime. We know that God can cause a donkey to speak (that was not added for humor, but to make a point.) He could work through anyone at anytime for His purposes to be fulfilled.

You refer to Acts chapter 2, 8, 10 and 19. Let’s evaluate them and apply your logic across the board. In Acts 2, 10, and 19 immediately following the filling of the Spirit these people spoke in tongues and was evidence that God had filled them, but that does not necessitate that because God used this to illustrate He had filled these people to others that this is the only way God works in people and that all people must do so likewise. In fact, Acts 8 does not include the gift of tongues being employed, but that they received the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 9 when Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit we do not see that he immediately spoke in tongues. This would have been a stage setter for all of the New Testament, yet it is omitted.

Now let’s go a little deeper in each situation:
Acts 2: We see the blowing of a violent wind. We do not see the laying on of hands. We see tongues of fire over their heads and they spoke in “other” tongues that were understandable to the people gathered as they heard them speaking in their own language. When one is filled with the Spirit does the wind always blow violently? Many believe that the Holy Spirit can only be given by the laying on of hands, but that is absent here and also not recorded in Acts 10. Do we see tongues of fire every time a believer is filled with God’s Spirit?

Acts 8: We see that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and this time the Apostles laid hands on them, but there is no mention of them speaking in tongues. The absence of it here is enough to cause one to pause if it is necessary evidence.

Acts 10: Cornelius and group received the Spirit while Peter was still speaking and they began to speak in tongues. This evidenced to the Jews with Peter that they had truly been filled. I guarantee you Cornelius already knew it when it happened. This was for the benefit of Peter and the brethren with him as they prepared to return to Jerusalem. When Peter told the group in Jerusalem that the Spirit had come on the Gentiles he had an added proof to express to those in Jerusalem, for no one can speak in tongues unless they are filled. Therefore, if it is evidence we would have people having to pray in tongues to prove to another that they are filled with the Spirit of God, which is not necessary to me. Should we have to speak in tongues in front of others for approval or acceptance?

Acts 19: Paul preached, baptized and lay on hands. The people were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and prophesied. Is prophesying a “proof” evidence too? If we say no, then on what grounds do we reject it as an evidence gift? If we claim because it is not recorded in all the other times people received the Holy Spirit, then we need only go to Acts 8 and 9 to find times where people were filled with the Holy Spirit and where there is no recording of the gift of tongues being present at that time.

We are in agreement on the gift of tongues and the fact that there are various applications of the gift for today. We disagree on whether a person can be filled with the Spirit of God and not speak in tongues, which is the base doctrine of “evidence” as given by most Pentecostal churches.

This is a hot topic and has been for years. There are people in various camps. I stand where I am based on the Word, as I understand it, and my personal experience.

Lord Bless,
LT
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 6, 2009 at 9:16pm
my question is why do u think u was baptized in spirit in 92. and i ask when u did speak in tongues later was it tongues used to speak message in church? secondly just because it doesnt say samartins spoke in tongues that doesnt mean they didnt right? would u agree that SIMON SAW SOMETHING.. what was it that he saw.. my question to you is WAS SIMON saved out of that group? he beleived and was baptized but i ask you did he recieve the holy spirit with rest of group? i hope u say no.. cause tradition(even though dont like to refer to tradition) says he became teh first teacher of GNOSTISM... so i wonder what he saw? something must of happened to others that didnt happen to him. secondly u mention paul.. but i ask you when did paul speak in tongues? does it say when he first started speaking in tongues? and u also make my point more valid when u talk about cornelious. u said u bet HE knew when he recieved it right? well when did he recieve it and was there signs of it. why not just make cornelius speak in tongues why have ALL HOUSEHOLD.. the point being is u said "speaking in tongues was to PROVE to other jews that was with paul.. why would God need to do that.. and of all the choices of showing they were saved why tongues out of all the other gifts.. so good debate though i just want to know are u saying that apostles was saved( holy spirit inside of them ) before pentecost? and that the filling at pentecost was just something later and speaking in tongues? point of whole thing is ONE MUST HAVE SPIRIT IN THEM TO BE SAVED.. question is how do they know if Spirit came in.. did apostles ever say that they knew someone was saved because others recieved spirit JUST LIKE THEY DID AT BEGINING.. if apostles say that then why shouldnt we. secondly you based ur arguements on fact that do we have to see tongues of fire or wind and etc.. thats in bible i didnt write that..and obviously no we dont need those signs.. i have question.. how do u know the HOLY SPIRIT REALLY CAME? what proof do u have that the Holy Ghost DOES come to indwell? would we understand the baptizm of holy spirit if the scriptures never said they were filled AND BEGAN TO SPEAK IN TONGUES.. why the mention of tongues in each group of people that God said the apostles would go witness too. acts 1:8. and if we agree that God can choose whatever way he wants to do what he wants then WE BOTH say he did atleast 3 different times USE TONGUES when Spirit first came in SO WHAT SCRIPTURES do we see that He doesnt use that anymore. and once again wether they layed hands or not, ITS CHRIST WHO BAPTIZES THEM WITH SPIRIT.. so do u see any common theme that when one is baptized in spirit they spoke in tongues.. and final question.. WHEN WAS FIRST MEMBERS OF CHURCH FORMED? WAS IT AT PENTECOST? and do u call that even at pentecost the baptizm of Holy Spirit?
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on April 7, 2009 at 2:09pm
Greg,

You ask a lot of questions :-)

I will endeavor to respond to your questions. You obviously have a lot of passion regarding this subject and I commend you on your passion.


my question is why do u think u was baptized in spirit in 92.
My initial response is, what makes you think that the tongue you speak in is from God and not another source? For demons us utterance that cannot be understood by humans as well, and I know of a time when a person was speaking in an unknown tongue until one understood it and the person was revealed to be praising Satan in the church. Now, do not be offended. I did not call you demonic. I am pointing out that you want proof from me that God filled me in 92 and all you offer is an unknown language and ask me to believe that you are in return. There are many false signs and miracles performed by the enemy. I do not sense you to be deceptive, but on fire for what you believe. You must also understand that because one states they speak in tongues they do not get a pass card. God tells us to watch out for false teachers and to test every spirit to see whether they are from God.

Regarding me. I will start with Acts 1:8. Acts 1:8 reveals three principles for God’s children. These principles are Power, Presence and Purpose. The power, presence and purpose of God was going to flow through the body of believers. They would not only receive power, but also experience the presence of the Holy Spirit as He comes on them (and lives in them). They would have purpose, be His witnesses sharing the gospel message. I was saved young, but was not filled with His Spirit until 1992. At that time I was going through a crisis and surrendered everything to God. Now let me head this off. Do not try and tell me that I got saved in 1992, for I already was and am fully persuaded of that fact. In response to my plea and surrender God’s Spirit came in like a flood. I did not experience the “warm fuzzies.” I was overwhelmed by His presence and glory. I was also released from some issues that were pressing against me. They no longer mattered and my focus became God. He gave me a purpose. He called me into ministry at age 32. He displayed His power through me as people started getting saved around me and through the ministry He was calling me to. Until this time I hade not been used to lead anyone to Christ. After the event on March 9, 1992 I began to understand the Bible more clearly. The internal manifestation of God’s Spirit changed my life in such a way that people who knew me knew something had change, I was different. (To those who may read this passing by, please understand that I am responding to a question. I do not like talking about myself. I cherish speaking of Christ and the cross and only speak of myself here to lift Jesus high by illustrating His work in me for His glory.) The presence of God and connection remained. My life had forever been enhanced through God’s presence.

Now to answer your question in a direct fashion. I do not think I was filled in 1992, I know it to be true without a doubt. The pouring out of His Spirit was an unmistakable event.


when u did speak in tongues later was it tongues used to speak message in church?
I have only been urged of God once to speak in a meeting and another interpreted what I said. This question is not relevant to the base of our topic, because you have distinguished the difference between the use of tongues in the church and at other times (i.e. personal prayer life). You have excluded the Scripture in 1 Corinthians and stated that it was referring to the usage in a church setting.


secondly just because it doesnt say samartins spoke in tongues that doesnt mean they didnt right?
Just because it doesn’t say it doesn’t mean they did either. This is circular logic. If the gift of tongues is so important and inseparable from the filling of the Holy Spirit, then God would have made sure that the confusion would be avoided by simply having added a few more words in the text to clarify it every time a person was filled. He did not. The “evidence” position is a doctrine that lacks proof in that it cannot be proven that one must speak in tongues if they are filled. The depth of the argument goes only as far as to point out that on several occasions they did speak in tongues. We can know that one cannot speak in tongues (God’s version) unless they are filled. Two separate things altogether.


would u agree that SIMON SAW SOMETHING.. what was it that he saw..
Again a circular argument. Simon saw something, but what was it? Can you give me definitive proof that it was tongues and not just assume it? The Scripture says that Simon followed Philip everywhere. For how long did he follow him? We don’t know. How many changed lives did he witness? How many people broke down in repentance and threw away their idols or magic books like the Ephesians. Without a doubt he saw God at work through Philip. Did some of these people he saw speak in tongues? Did all of them? The Scripture does not say. It is silent on the issue, an issue of great importance to some that want the gift to be “evidence.” Even if he saw some speaking in tongues, which I believe (without Scripture saying it, it is only an assumption) he did. Does it say that the gift of tongues was what turned him towards God or impressed him?


my question to you is WAS SIMON saved out of that group? he beleived and was baptized but i ask you did he receive the holy spirit with rest of group? i hope u say no.. cause tradition(even though dont like to refer to tradition) says he became teh first teacher of GNOSTISM... so i wonder what he saw? something must of happened to others that didnt happen to him.
Several key points here. 1) Tradition could be right or wrong. I don’t know and really doesn’t matter to me. 2) I read in the text that He believed and was baptized. If it was not genuine belief, why did Philip baptize him? If tongues were to be the evidence then one of two things occurred. Either he spoke in tongues or Philip baptized someone that he should not have, if tongues is the evidence. 3) Why would the Bible say he believed, if he did not? One could argue that even Satan believes, but that is not the context here at all. The context is salvation. 4) There is a misunderstanding on the part of many regarding being filled with the Spirit of God. At salvation we receive the indwelling of God’s Spirit. He comes in to mark us for salvation and is given as a deposit guaranteeing our salvation (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:14). There is another event, some call the second work of grace also known as sanctification, which includes being filled with the Holy Spirit. It is at this time that He comes into the life of the saved with power, presence (manifested) and purpose. 5) Any believer that is not filled with the Spirit of God sees a spirit-filled person, they realizes that something is missing in their life. Many go their whole life wondering because not many will teach them that they are missing the power, presence and purpose of God in their lives, that they need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. 6) For clarity sake. It is possible that a person could get saved and filled all at the same time, but this tends to not be the norm, but the exception. Paul waited three days before He was filled, unless one believes He did not accept Christ as his Savior on the road to Damascus. There are others who believed in Jesus but were not filled until they were taught this truth recorded in Scripture.


secondly u mention paul.. but i ask you when did paul speak in tongues? does it say when he first started speaking in tongues? The Scripture is silent on the timing of him speaking in tongues. We know that it is not recorded at the time he was filled with God’s Spirit, Did he speak in tongues then? We do not know and cannot state with certainty that he did. What did he learn in the three years he withdrew before returning to ministry? We can only speculate, but I speculate that the three years were the true training grounds for Paul that trained Him to be the Apostle Paul. God works this was often in Scripture. Paul started to minister and then withdrew. Moses sought to lead the Hebrews out from under Egypt’s control and failed only to withdraw for 40 years. Jesus, the Son of God, went into the dessert for 40 days.


and u also make my point more valid when u talk about cornelious. u said u bet HE knew when he recieved it right? well when did he recieve it and was there signs of it. He received the Holy Spirit as recoded in Acts 10:44. The sign He received would have been the overwhelming presence of God that just flowed into his life. He most certainly did not wait until he spoke in tongues and then thought to himself, because I spoke in tongues I now know that God is in me. My goodness, I sure hope you experience a far greater presence of God’s indwelling Spirit than just the fact you speak in tongues. If that is all there was I would be disappointed. Keep in mind. I am one who speaks in tongues (not a brag, but necessary for this discussion) and can distinguish between the gift and the Giver and the utterances and His presence.


why not just make cornelius speak in tongues why have ALL HOUSEHOLD.. the point being is u said "speaking in tongues was to PROVE to other jews that was with paul.. why would God need to do that.. and of all the choices of showing they were saved why tongues out of all the other gifts.. so good debate though Actually, it was Peter, not Paul. Why did God tell Moses to strike the Rock the first time and tell him to speak to it the second time? Who knows? The fact that they spoke in tongues simply proves they have the gift of tongues. One cannot speak in tongues (God’s version) unless they are filled with the Spirit of God. This whole episode takes place at the birthing of the Gentile church. The Jews looked upon the Gentiles as dogs. Peter went back to tell them what God had done. In his report you assume that he highlighted the gift of tongues when no such recording is found. In Acts 11:15-17 Peter testifies that God had given them the same gift that they had received in the beginning. You assume he means tongues, yet the context clearly reveals he means the Gift of the Holy Spirit., and tongues is not literally recorded (Look back to Acts 10:45 and also see Lk. 11:13; Acts 2:38)


i just want to know are u saying that apostles was saved( holy spirit inside of them ) before pentecost? and that the filling at pentecost was just something later and speaking in tongues? point of whole thing is ONE MUST HAVE SPIRIT IN THEM TO BE SAVED.. Already addressed this, but will recap. Two distinct events. Salvation and filling with God’s Spirit (Sanctification). They can happen at he same time, but do not always happen together. Whether they were saved before does not factor into this topic, but I will give you some food for thought and my opinion. Was Moses saved or Elijah prior to Jesus being lifted on the cross? Who appeared with Jesus in the event we call “The Mount of Transfiguration?” Jesus also said that those who were given to Him would not be lost, that included the disciples. Had they experienced the fullness of salvation or were they preordained and protected unto salvation. I believe their salvation was sealed at the day of Jesus resurrection, though they possessed it by faith prior. We see in Acts 1:8 the coming of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean He was not anywhere to be found on earth prior to that date? Was there a void of God on the earth for the 40 days between Jesus’ ascension and the day of Pentecost? Of course not. The presence of God is everywhere, always, as He is omnipresent. The Day of Pentecost marked the coming of the Holy Spirit upon man to endow him with power, presence (manifested) and purpose.


question is how do they know if Spirit came in.. did apostles ever say that they knew someone was saved because others recieved spirit JUST LIKE THEY DID AT BEGINING.. if apostles say that then why shouldnt we. You refer to the gift when I believe Peter is referring to the filling of the Holy Spirit. There are many evidences of one being filled and not just one. This is the crux of our difference. Which do you suppose they discussed more often? Did they discuss the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or the fact that those at Pentecost spoke in tongues?


secondly you based ur arguements on fact that do we have to see tongues of fire or wind and etc.. thats in bible i didnt write that..and obviously no we dont need those signs.. I never said we have to. I asked you a question regarding it. In fact the whole point is that these other things are not expected, though God could do any of them at anytime if He wishes. The point is that tongues, like these others, are not required as evidence. Tongues is one of many gifts that God may endow believer’s with after they are filled with His Spirit.


i have question.. how do u know the HOLY SPIRIT REALLY CAME? what proof do u have that the Holy Ghost DOES come to indwell? would we understand the baptizm of holy spirit if the scriptures never said they were filled AND BEGAN TO SPEAK IN TONGUES.. The Word of God and the Spirit of God confirm all things. Speaking in tongues was not the highlight in the times that being filled was accompanied by that gift. The filling of one with the Spirit of God was the main theme, not the spiritual gift.


why the mention of tongues in each group of people that God said the apostles would go witness too. acts 1:8. and if we agree that God can choose whatever way he wants to do what he wants then WE BOTH say he did atleast 3 different times USE TONGUES when Spirit first came in SO WHAT SCRIPTURES do we see that He doesnt use that anymore. I never said that when one receives the filling of God’s Spirit that they cannot speak in tongues if God gives the gift at that time. I state that one can be filled and not speak in tongues. You are not debating one who does not believe in the gift of tongues. The three times it is recorded prove that three times God gave the gift of tongues and it can happen that way today, but does not have to be included for one to be filled.


and once again wether they layed hands or not, ITS CHRIST WHO BAPTIZES THEM WITH SPIRIT.. so do u see any common theme that when one is baptized in spirit they spoke in tongues.. Common theme, but not an essential, because we have recorded in Scripture where there is no mention of the gift of tongues at the time of their filling. The laying on of hands is an example of how God works sometimes and at others times he chooses to do it differently. How many different ways did Jesus heal blind people in the Scripture? Was it always the same way?


and final question.. WHEN WAS FIRST MEMBERS OF CHURCH FORMED? WAS IT AT PENTECOST? and do u call that even at pentecost the baptizm of Holy Spirit? The date of the birth of the church has been debated by many. The date of the churches empowerment is not debatable. My view is that the church birthed at the resurrection of Jesus. Any lingering doubts the disciples had were washed away when they saw the risen Savior, Hallelujah!!! The commission, we call the Great Commission, to the church was post resurrection and the instructions Jesus gave to Peter to feed Jesus’ sheep was also post resurrection. Again,, the date of the church being empowered, or as stated earlier the reality of His power, presence and purpose for each believer has been given as Jesus said that when He was to go away He would send another, the Holy Spirit.

Greg, I have no reason not to believe that you love Jesus. I understand your POV and have debated it many times with those of your mind set. I respect your view, but disagree with it. I do not believe the Scripture supports the “evidence” claim. That is my view and I have laid out many reasons why in these two postings. I understand that you disagree and I can live with that and respect you as a brother and move forward.

Lord Bless,
LT
Permalink Reply by AAG Netguy on April 8, 2009 at 10:24am
LT,

I honestly don't know what I would do without you! Thanks for your extensive, thoughtful, logical and biblical responses. YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!

Greg
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 8, 2009 at 12:08pm
thanks for the debate. it was healthy. i see that we do agree that when people get baptized in the holy ghost that they Can speak in tongues.. you dont agree that all do.. i understand that.. it sounded like u are agreeing with what ASSEMBLIES OF GOD TEACH.. that the holy ghost comes to reside in a believer and thats salvation, THEN there is a second work which they call THE EMPOWERMENT to be effective in ministry... so with that view i just wonder why people basically are saying that one can have the holy spirit BUT HAVE NO POWER.. just think about that.. then u also said the being filled with spirit is the PRESENCE, POWER AND PURPOSE.. my point is why do u seperate this.. the presence of God is when u experience the power of God and when u realize your purpose.. again on cornelius you say ur sure he knew when he recieved the presence of GOd(born again experince) right? yeah at the moment he FIRST recieved the holy spirit he spoke in tongues.. was there a seperation in time?no. but u already gave your answers.. and heres what i dont agree with.. that YOU can say one can have the holy spirit, but they still need empowerent. thats like saying that YOU CAN HAVE CHRIST IN YOU BUT NOT HAVE POWER YET...thats denying power of God. also you said Holy SPirt was already around. i agree, so did that make them saved? they had to have the Spirit of God on INSIDE TO BE SAVED RIGHT... so with ur explaination u say they was saved without the SPIRIT ON "INSIDE" OF THEM.. thats contradicting to scripture. your explaination with SIMON in acts 8 was why did he get baptized if he wasnt saved.. i ask you do u think that everyone who gets baptized IS SAVED.. if u believe that then your going to be deceived. secondly you say scriiptures say he belived. go to JOHN 2:22-25 AND 6:66. did these people beleive? answer to that is yes. did they continue with Christ.. more important did he committ himself to them.. point being one can say they beleive, one can get baptized does not mean they are saved... so it was important to bring up simon as if he was saved, because this debunks the teaching just because one says he beieves and gets baptized he is saved. look at the apostles response when he ask to buy gift.. oh that reminds me I NEVER ASSUMED THAT THE GIFT IF TONGUES... i preach and teach that the gift CHRIST was talking about IS THE HOLY GHOST (NOT TONGUES)... so thats why i dont understand that when YOU believe the gift is HOLY GHOST and not tongues then why dont u see that tongues is accompianed with the gift of Holy Ghost.. its not that they received the gift of HOLY GHOST and also recieved Gift of tongues.... NOTICE the gift of tongues is used to preach message with interpreter and 2 at most can do it... so as before i showed my distinction that those scriptures i showed are not the OPERATION OF GIFT OF TONGUES, it was the operation of the sign gift.. if u say when they spoke in tongues as THE GIFT and needed an interpreter i say who did PAUL have to interpret tongues for? so i wasnt referring to peter in acts 10 i was referring to paul in acts 19. but thanks for the debate and i do consider u my brother in christ to... oh and it is important question to ask if apostles HAD THE SPIRIT DWELLING "IN" THEM BEFORE PENTECOST... because if not then we see that the baptizm of holy spirit is when a person gets saved.. and my arguement is if the FIRST PEOPLE OF THE "SPIRITUAL CHURCH' recieved the holy spirit and result was speaking in tongues then why wouldnt we. if first Gentiles had same thing aprox. 38 yrs later happen identical then why wouldnt we.. AND IN ACTS 19. paul said SINCE YOU BELEIVED.. if they beleived and that = automatically indwelt with spirit, then why would paul ask DID THEY RECIEVE THE HOLY GHOST.. are u saying they had holy ghost but just not empowerement? could u maybe just answer this question and then we done.. answer why would paul ask if they recieved HOLY SPIRIT since THEY BELEIVED.. oh would u be willing to have a brotherly/friendly debate down at your church.. maybe i could fly down there and debate this.. God bless.. ur awesome for even explaining most people wouldnt even explained.. thanks ..
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 8, 2009 at 12:22pm
one last thing . i notice u said Dont try to make u think u got saved in 1992 because u say u know for certainty that u was saved when younger..i notice this is a COMMON explaination of many people. they say the accepted Christ when YOUNGER but then basically lived like hell and then they came back to REDEDICATE THEMSELFS.. im not saying its possible.. but i notice that in MOST cases like this the admit they didnt experience baptism of holy ghost UNTIL AFTER they came back to rededicate self.. that they didnt get released out of bondages UNTIL AFTER they received baptism of holy ghost... so i wonder why all these people who ADMIT they didnt recieve power to break bondages, never full surrendered to God, and lived like hell, all say they were saved JUST didnt understand or been taught right.. so i ask do u beleive that u could of lost salvation... if u was living lifestyle of hell(habitually living in sin) if u would of died would u went to hell? (i believe that once saved always saved and not that u can live habitually in sin). i believe if truely saved YOU CANNOT habitually sin... so here is my problem with that.. i noticed MOST PEOPLE WHO BELEIVE BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST IS SEPERATE FROM SALVATION they all have the same story.. they ws saved at youg age, fall away and come back when older and just say they was saved whole time, they just didnt dedicate self to God... and majority of these people deny that baptism of holy ghost will be followed with tongues.. thats crazy.. oh and that MOST if not all these peopel always mention that speaking in tongues can also be satanic...(i dont deny that) but its funny that most peopel contribute something so powerful of GOd to satan... and i never seen a scripture where satan used someone to speak in tongues( again im not saying that cults and others do not). but think one moment... isnt it strange that most people who was saved at young age and falll aways, ALL say well i just didnt dedicate self yet to Christ, i had other bondages, and etc... so if salvation means to be deleivered, how could u be saved if you was under the bondage (meaning habitaul doings) BUT DIDNT HAVE POWER TO BREAK AWAY ANYWAYS... another wards would God save a person but not give him or her power for over 10 years.. like in my church sunday school teacher says he has been saved for 52yrs. but has not experienced the empoweremnt yet.. so he saved for 52 yrs but has not recieved EMPOWERMENT.. now is that the God we serve. will saved you but not give u power to live a godly life.. thats in essence what ur teaching when u seperate born again experience from baptsim of holy ghost.
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 8, 2009 at 12:36pm
would it be fair to see WE teachers need to put emphasis to SEEK the baptism of HOLY SPIRIT wether u beleive it is always or sometimes followed by tongues... you mentioned JESUS saying luke 11:13.. is HE NOT TALKING about SEEKING the INDWELLING OF HOLY SPIRIT.. look at the context how the person must be PERSISTENT in asking until recieving.. to teach one automatically recieved the indwelling causes he or she believes or gets baptized in water would be false.. so can u truely see why i dotn seperated the empowerment from the indwelling... we have many people who beleive they are saved, but yet not have power.. i beleive the saving comes from the saving power.. to seperate it would contradict, luke 11:13 john 7:37-39; 14:26; 16:7. MOST IMPORTANT SIR in JOHN 16:7.. JESUS says that holy spirit is around them now BUT they have to have SPIRIT ON INSIDE. and that was IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL PENTECOST... THATS WHAT THEY WAS WAITING FOR ... THE RECEIVING OF HOLYSPIRIT.. romans 8:9 your none of His if spirit not on INSIDE.. see my point now and danger of teaching that one automatically recieves holy ghost.. HOW CAN U BE SAVED WITHOUT POWER.... MAIN POINT.. other than that ur depending on own power and own decision that ur saved and not on GOD DECISION TO SAVE U IF HE CHOOSES.. john baptist said you are getting baptized in water, BUT you shall be baptized in Holy GHost.. so could those people who got baptized in water been saved but not get BAPTIZED IN HOLY GHOST? in ur case why did God decided to finally give u power yrs after u got saved why not at beginig then u wouldnt have lived a habitual life of sin.. or u would of been able to live a dedicated life... oh u said u started out pentecostal was it ASSEMBLIES OF GOD... THATS CHURCH I JUST LEFT..
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on April 8, 2009 at 4:41pm
Greetings Greg R.

thanks for the debate. it was healthy. i see that we do agree that when people get baptized in the holy ghost that they Can speak in tongues.. you dont agree that all do.. I believe that God can enable any Spirit-filled believer to speak in tongues, but does not always and is not the “evidence” sign.


i understand that.. it sounded like u are agreeing with what ASSEMBLIES OF GOD TEACH.. that the holy ghost comes to reside in a believer and thats salvation, THEN there is a second work which they call THE EMPOWERMENT to be effective in ministry... so with that view i just wonder why people basically are saying that one can have the holy spirit BUT HAVE NO POWER.. just think about that.. Actually the Assemblies of God got is beginning within the organization I am with. They broke away in the early 1900s. Can you guess what the issue was? It was the “evidence” issue. Their doctrine and ours is basically the same except regarding the gift of tongues. BTW, I am with The Christian and Missionary Alliance that was started by A.B. Simpson. We do not call it the “EMPOWERMENT.” We call it sanctification. Regarding the “Think about it” I have over the last 17 years and am satisfied with the findings. We receive the Holy Spirit as a deposit marking us for salvation. At salvation we are fully changed spiritually, but still live in the sinful flesh. The great war we engage in after that is over the mind (Romans 6-8). The deposit is not the filling. If one has the Holy Spirit fully at all times, what does Ephesians 5:18 refer to when we are commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit, taking into account that the word in the Greek that is translated as “BE” is a continual, relating to being continually filled with the Holy Spirit. I will get into this a little more later in this response.


then u also said the being filled with spirit is the PRESENCE, POWER AND PURPOSE.. my point is why do u seperate this.. the presence of God is when u experience the power of God and when u realize your purpose.. Reread what I said regarding Acts 1:8. I said that there are three principles revealed when one is filled with the Holy Spirit. We experience His presence (communion), Power (empowerment to serve) and purpose (What we have been empowered to accomplish). These are all experienced through the filling of the Holy Spirit. What would it benefit a man to receive power and miss the presence (communion) with God? What would it benefit to have power and no purpose? These are not contradictory, but complimentary. They are not separated, but identified as part of what takes place when one is filled with God’s Spirit.


again on cornelius you say ur sure he knew when he recieved the presence of GOd(born again experince) right? yeah at the moment he FIRST recieved the holy spirit he spoke in tongues.. was there a seperation in time?no. Can you divide a nanosecond? Did the Scripture reveal that there is absolutely no passing of time between what Cornelius knew and when he opened his mouth and began to speak? One must be careful to not assume that something is there, when it is not fully revealed.


but u already gave your answers.. and heres what i dont agree with.. that YOU can say one can have the holy spirit, but they still need empowerent. thats like saying that YOU CAN HAVE CHRIST IN YOU BUT NOT HAVE POWER YET...thats denying power of God. This is not hard to understand when you understand that one receives the Holy Spirit as a deposit marking us for salvation. He is there, but not manifested. This manifestation does not occur until one is filled. The disconnect is not with God who wills all to be filled, but will not force them to be in this life. The offer is there, but many do not receive the filling or are slow to receive the filling. Regarding “denying the power of God,” it would only be denying the power of God if all people were filled with the Spirit of God at salvation, which is not the case. Do you believe that Paul was not saved until after the three days in blindness or when he met Jesus?


also you said Holy SPirt was already around. i agree, so did that make them saved? they had to have the Spirit of God on INSIDE TO BE SAVED RIGHT... so with ur explaination u say they was saved without the SPIRIT ON "INSIDE" OF THEM.. thats contradicting to scripture. They had to have the Holy Spirit in them to be sealed, they already fulfilled the requirements of Romans 10:9 and only need the Spirit to cause the spiritual change and to seal them. The proclamation that they were Jesus’ was already assured for them, all except for the one who was the betrayer. How did Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus as recorded in Matthew 17 if they were not saved? How could they be there if they were still lost in their sin? There are some aspects that we do not fully understand. (Matthew 19:26)


your explaination with SIMON in acts 8 was why did he get baptized if he wasnt saved.. i ask you do u think that everyone who gets baptized IS SAVED.. You miss the point. According to you one is saved and filled at the same time and speaking in tongues is the evidence of this happening. Why would Philip let him be baptized if he was not demonstrating the sign, if the sign is evidence of Spirit baptism and salvation? That was my point and question for you?


if u believe that then your going to be deceived. secondly you say scriiptures say he belived. Not relevant due to the fact that you missed the point I was making and are arguing against an errant understanding of what I said.


go to JOHN 2:22-25 AND 6:66. did these people beleive? answer to that is yes. did they continue with Christ.. more important did he committ himself to them.. point being one can say they beleive, one can get baptized does not mean they are saved... so it was important to bring up simon as if he was saved, because this debunks the teaching just because one says he beieves and gets baptized he is saved. look at the apostles response when he ask to buy gift.. John 2:22 exemplifies what I have already said. The church, in my opinion, began after the resurrection because they “believed the Scripture and the words Jesus had spoken.” John 6;66 shows that people can follow a person for a while and then reject him later if the teaching is not to their liking. In John 6:66, what did they believe and does the Scripture actually say that they all believed? Actually, just the opposite. Lets look at the previous verses in John 6:64-65, “Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." I return to the previous thought. Why, if tongues is the evidence, would Philip allow him to be baptized without demonstrating the evidence? Could it be that there is no evidence gift and he was baptized because he made a profession of faith and asked to be baptized.


oh that reminds me I NEVER ASSUMED THAT THE GIFT IF TONGUES... i preach and teach that the gift CHRIST was talking about IS THE HOLY GHOST (NOT TONGUES)... so thats why i dont understand that when YOU believe the gift is HOLY GHOST and not tongues then why dont u see that tongues is accompianed with the gift of Holy Ghost.. its not that they received the gift of HOLY GHOST and also recieved Gift of tongues.... The gift of God is truly salvation that includes us receiving the deposit of the Holy Spirit and being marked for salvation and another gift of God is the filling of the Holy Spirit. In receiving the Holy Spirit one then is given spiritual gifts as the Holy Spirit deems appropriate for each person based upon the call of their life (their mission for God). Hebrews 2:4 says the following, “God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” 1 Corinthians 12:11 when referring to the various gifts says, “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and He gives them to each one, just as he determines. Can you list the gifts of the Spirit? Is tongues one of those gifts? Where in Scripture does it single it out as more important than another gift?



NOTICE the gift of tongues is used to preach message with interpreter and 2 at most can do it... so as before i showed my distinction that those scriptures i showed are not the OPERATION OF GIFT OF TONGUES, it was the operation of the sign gift.. if u say when they spoke in tongues as THE GIFT and needed an interpreter i say who did PAUL have to interpret tongues for? so i wasnt referring to peter in acts 10 i was referring to paul in acts 19. but thanks for the debate and i do consider u my brother in christ to... Did I say that? I only repeated your view from another forum that you distinguished between the usage in church as outlined in 1 Corinthians and other usages of the gift. I also told you that I speak in tongues. In private prayer no interpreter is needed. Thus the rest of the comment you made does not apply because the context was missed to begin with.


oh and it is important question to ask if apostles HAD THE SPIRIT DWELLING "IN" THEM BEFORE PENTECOST... because if not then we see that the baptizm of holy spirit is when a person gets saved.. We see in this case that the people were sealed and filled at the same time. That does not necessitate that God has to do it that way every other time a person gets saved. You assume that their experience has to be the standard and that all people must experience the same way. I return to the previous question I posed. If one must speak in tongues when they are filled, then why would God not be forced to do it the “same way” every time and blow the wind and place tongues of fire on peoples heads. You are choosing to highlight the one that fits your doctrine and ignore the others when you are using Pentecost and the idea that the disciples stated that they receive the Holy Spirit as they had, meaning in the same way. The focus is being filled with the Holy Spirit. I never said that they were indwelt before Pentecost, but said the following in my previous response, “Jesus also said that those who were given to Him would not be lost, that included the disciples. Had they experienced the fullness of salvation or were they preordained and protected unto salvation. I believe their salvation was sealed at the day of Jesus resurrection, though they possessed it by faith prior.” Do you suppose that one of them could have been killed before Pentecost? Not according to the Word, but what if they could have for discussion sake? Would that mean they would have gone to hell, while Moses and Elijah appear with Christ before the blood was even shed? Is anyone in the Old Testament going to be resurrected at the coming of Christ? On what basis can they be resurrected to live with God for eternity (salvation) if they were never filled with the Holy Spirit?


and my arguement is if the FIRST PEOPLE OF THE "SPIRITUAL CHURCH' recieved the holy spirit and result was speaking in tongues then why wouldnt we. The Word does not teach us that one must. We have examples of when it happened and other times silence regarding tongues when they were filled. You ask “wouldn’t we.” Does God work the same way in all situations through out tim?. I repeat, why did Jesus use different ways to bring the healing of people’s sight? Why was Moses wrong fro striking the Rock? God will not let Himself be put in a box. He operates in whatever manner He chooses according to Who He Is.


if first Gentiles had same thing aprox. 38 yrs later happen identical then why wouldnt we.. How was it identical? Where is the wind and the tongues of fire? We see them being filled with the Spirit. God gave them this gift at that time, but He did not have to.


AND IN ACTS 19. paul said SINCE YOU BELEIVED.. if they beleived and that = automatically indwelt with spirit, then why would paul ask DID THEY RECIEVE THE HOLY GHOST.. Do you believe that the gospel can be preached and people believe it and not be saved? This text only substantiates my position. Apollos had taught these people regarding Jesus. How do we know this? Look at what the Scripture says about Apollos in Acts 18:24-25, “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.” Paul came and explained a deeper truth to them, what we call the Deeper-Spirit Life teaching. Therefore, again, they were already sealed and now they were filled with the Holy Spirit.


are u saying they had holy ghost but just not empowerement? could u maybe just answer this question and then we done.. answer why would paul ask if they recieved HOLY SPIRIT since THEY BELEIVED.. oh would u be willing to have a brotherly/friendly debate down at your church.. maybe i could fly down there and debate this.. God bless.. ur awesome for even explaining most people wouldnt even explained.. thanks .. Paul was referring to the filling of the Holy Spirit. The deposit that marks us for salvation is assured at salvation, which I see as two separate events, and you do not. Do you believe these people who heard the gospel message and believed it were not saved until Paul came? Do you believe that Paul was not saved until after the three days of blindness? Save yourself a plane ticket. You are not the first, nor will you be the last person I will debate on this subject. We can continue the debate right here in a forum where others can benefit from it.


one last thing . i notice u said Dont try to make u think u got saved in 1992 because u say u know for certainty that u was saved when younger..i notice this is a COMMON explaination of many people. they say the accepted Christ when YOUNGER but then basically lived like hell and then they came back to REDEDICATE THEMSELFS.. It may be common because it is true :-) I am not sure what you mean by “lived like hell.” I, as a child of god, lived in rebellion to my Father’s will for my life and He intervened and disciplined me as the loving Father He is (Hebrews 12). I did not rededicate, I surrendered all. BIG difference, though I do not oppose rededicating oneself to God.


im not saying its possible.. but i notice that in MOST cases like this the admit they didnt experience baptism of holy ghost UNTIL AFTER they came back to rededicate self.. that they didnt get released out of bondages UNTIL AFTER they received baptism of holy ghost... so i wonder why all these people who ADMIT they didnt recieve power to break bondages, never full surrendered to God, and lived like hell, all say they were saved JUST didnt understand or been taught right.. You are wasting your time on this rabbit trail. You do not walk in my shoes. You are free to doubt my salvation at a young age. I need not prove that to you in any way, beyond my word that says I was saved and had full assurance of salvation from age 5. Of the many people you refer to having spoken with, who am I to judge if they were saved or not at a young age. Can I assume some were and some were not? If I were using them as my illustration you might have a point, but I am not. You have a choice … you can believe me or not, but that does not change the truth regarding our topic, which is “can one be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues?” I state that I was filled in 92 and did not speak in tongues until 2002. In this context the prior to 92 is irrelevant anyway. Now you are free to doubt whether I was filled in 92 or not. Shall I spend hours trying to convince you of that which is special to me and assured by His Word and Spirit? I think not.


so i ask do u beleive that u could of lost salvation... if u was living lifestyle of hell(habitually living in sin) if u would of died would u went to hell? (i believe that once saved always saved and not that u can live habitually in sin). i believe if truely saved YOU CANNOT habitually sin... I believe God’s Word clearly teaches that one cannot lose their salvation once they have been changed, have become a new creation, and known as a child of God. I believe our heavenly Father employs divine discipline (I responded much to a forum here on AAG regarding Once Saved. You can go there and read it if you wish. I do not wish to duplicate it here.)


so here is my problem with that.. i noticed MOST PEOPLE WHO BELEIVE BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST IS SEPERATE FROM SALVATION they all have the same story.. they ws saved at youg age, fall away and come back when older and just say they was saved whole time, they just didnt dedicate self to God... and majority of these people deny that baptism of holy ghost will be followed with tongues.. thats crazy.. OK. I agree with the concept, because I believe that is the truth of Scripture. Scary to you, but t is assuring to me. Could there be a reason that so many have the same story?


oh and that MOST if not all these peopel always mention that speaking in tongues can also be satanic...(i dont deny that) but its funny that most peopel contribute something so powerful of GOd to satan... Do you contradict yourself? You don’t deny it and yet find it funny that so many attribute something so powerful of God to Satan. Does not 1 John 4:1 tell us to test the spirits? If there is even one occasion of false hood regarding this gift should we not be cautious? Have you never witnessed false signs and miracles? This line of thinking again deviates from our topic, which is which is “can one be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues?” I will add that I find the inclusion of this here by you very interesting. Are you treading close to calling us who question whether some of the speaking in another language is at times a satanic language are guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For attributing to Satan the work of God is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.


and i never seen a scripture where satan used someone to speak in tongues( again im not saying that cults and others do not). but think one moment... isnt it strange that most people who was saved at young age and falll aways, ALL say well i just didnt dedicate self yet to Christ, i had other bondages, and etc... so if salvation means to be deleivered, how could u be saved if you was under the bondage (meaning habitaul doings) BUT DIDNT HAVE POWER TO BREAK AWAY ANYWAYS... another wards would God save a person but not give him or her power for over 10 years.. What is the purpose of salvation and its base definition? Is it deliverance from the battle of the flesh or the trials and tribulations in this life? No. Salvation relates to justification and regeneration. We are saved from our guilt relating to sin. Jesus died and paid the price that we may be found spotless through Him. This is a basic act of justification. Jesus cleanses us and changes us spiritually as stated earlier in this response. What was the power for? Is it to break bondages? God does break the bondages of the flesh, but not perfected in the flesh this side of heaven. Let’s go back to Acts 1:8? What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit being given to fill us? To experience His presence (communion), to empower us to accomplish the task He gives us and to give us purpose for our lives. Take a minute and scan the Scriptures for failures or struggles? Did John Mark abandon Barnabas and Paul? Did Paul and Barnabas argue over taking John Mark back? Did Spirit-filled Peter draw back his fellowship with Gentiles when faced with peer pressure causing Paul to call him out? Did Paul not have that thorn in his side? I teach that we are spiritually perfected, becoming children of God, at salvation through Jesus, but are only babes needing to learn to crawl and then walk and then run. Our flesh is sinful all the days of our life. It is not yet transformed. The war we face is the battle over the mind. This war is waged by the flesh and the spirit (Rom. 6-8, plus other Scripture support this).

The points you now try to make are not supporting your argument, but seek to discredit any who do not believe in what you believe. This is a common tactic, but will not work. I treat you as a brother, please stay on topic and support you argument.


like in my church sunday school teacher says he has been saved for 52yrs. but has not experienced the empoweremnt yet.. so he saved for 52 yrs but has not recieved EMPOWERMENT.. now is that the God we serve. will saved you but not give u power to live a godly life.. thats in essence what ur teaching when u seperate born again experience from baptsim of holy ghost. What do you want me to say? I don’t know this man. Is he referring to being filled or the fact that he has not spoken in tongues and thus must not be filled? The offer is there, but one must surrender to Him and be filled with the Holy Spirit.


would it be fair to see WE teachers need to put emphasis to SEEK the baptism of HOLY SPIRIT wether u beleive it is always or sometimes followed by tongues...
I teach the truth of our need to be filled with the Holy Spirit regularly and with a deep conviction that unless a believer is filled with the Spirit they will experience repetitive failures in their attempt to live for God, for one cannot do it on their own. Without the filling of the Holy Spirit one will remain a babe in Christ.


you mentioned JESUS saying luke 11:13.. is HE NOT TALKING about SEEKING the INDWELLING OF HOLY SPIRIT.. Look again at the context in which I used it. You only make my point for me.


look at the context how the person must be PERSISTENT in asking until recieving.. to teach one automatically recieved the indwelling causes he or she believes or gets baptized in water would be false.. Does one have to labor to get saved or is it a free gift and without works according to Ephesians 2:8-9? The context is not salvation, but the filling of the Holy Spirit. You are substantiating my position. One must come to the point of crisis, surrender, in order to be filled with the Spirit. Salvation is not laborious, but dependant upon God’s work and is a free gift with out work on the part of man.


so can u truely see why i dotn seperated the empowerment from the indwelling... we have many people who beleive they are saved, but yet not have power.. i beleive the saving comes from the saving power.. to seperate it would contradict, luke 11:13 john 7:37-39; 14:26; 16:7. Saving power, salvation, is different from empowerment to live out the Christ-like life. So, no, I don’t see why you do not separate them and are concerned based on the last segment that you are attaching, unknowingly, works to salvation.


MOST IMPORTANT SIR in JOHN 16:7.. JESUS says that holy spirit is around them now BUT they have to have SPIRIT ON INSIDE. and that was IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL PENTECOST... THATS WHAT THEY WAS WAITING FOR ... THE RECEIVING OF HOLYSPIRIT.. romans 8:9 your none of His if spirit not on INSIDE.. see my point now and danger of teaching that one automatically recieves holy ghost.. Does one not receive the Spirit of God when they are saved? Does not the Scripture tell us that He comes as a deposit marking us for salvation at that time?

You say “IMPOSSIBLE UNTIL PENTECOST.” Yet, the Scripture says the following in Matthew 19:25-26, “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." What is impossible for God in relation to salvation? How sure were the disciples of their salvation before Pentecost? Read Matthew 19:27-29, “Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”


HOW CAN U BE SAVED WITHOUT POWER.... MAIN POINT.. other than that ur depending on own power and own decision that ur saved and not on GOD DECISION TO SAVE U IF HE CHOOSES.. No one is saved without the power of God at work in their lives. That is different from the concept that one must display power in order to prove they are saved. We are saved from sin and unto God by God. I trust not in my work, but the work of Christ through His redemptive work. As a result of this work we are capable of being filled with the Spirit of God. When this happens we may or may not speak in tongues. Salvation does not depend on the evidence of speaking in tongues, but upon God and God alone.


john baptist said you are getting baptized in water, BUT you shall be baptized in Holy GHost.. so could those people who got baptized in water been saved but not get BAPTIZED IN HOLY GHOST? Salvation depends on God’s work. Did they believe in and receive Jesus Christ as their Savior? It is inevitable that a believer will be filled with the Spirit of God. The timing is unknown. For some it is at salvation. For others it may occur later in life. Yet, for others it may not occur until the end of physical life.


in ur case why did God decided to finally give u power yrs after u got saved why not at beginig then u wouldnt have lived a habitual life of sin.. The timing depended on me surrendering. This has been stated over and over. A believer must come to the crisis event and surrender all to Jesus. God did not wait; I did not receive the gift that was available until 92.


or u would of been able to live a dedicated life... oh u said u started out pentecostal was it ASSEMBLIES OF GOD... THATS CHURCH I JUST LEFT.. I did not say I started out Pentecostal. I said I am charismatic. I am in the same group that I have been in since 92. BTW, I was filled before I went to the C&MA church (not AG church). God led me there and I stayed. God called to into the ministry through the C&MA and I still pastor in the C&MA today.

These questions and responses are way too long and time consuming. If you wish to proceed in this debate please shorten your question/response so that we can move forward in a timely manner.

Lord Bless,
LT
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 8, 2009 at 11:04pm
to start off u did say you use to be in penecostal church. and as far as why did phillip baptized simon you answered it perferct... because he made a profession of faith.. thats all that is need to be baptized.. u dont have to wait until someone has the sign of being saved. so do u beleive everyone who makes a profession IS SAVED ALREADY.. go back and read scripture and see they did not have HOLY SPIRIT YET... v15-16. these people DID NOT YET HAVE HOLY GHOST YET.. as far as acts 19 you say they did have holy spirit before being filled... wow.. so your calling them liars.. they said THEY HAVENT HEARD OF HOLY SPIRIT... it didnt say anything about not know what it means to be filled after being sealed.. THEY SAID THEY NEVER HEARD OF HOLY SPIRIT.. THAT MEANS THEY DIDNT HAVE HOLY SPIRIT.. now thats two times you would be arguing against scriptrue not with me.. if paul was here today and u heard him walk in ur church and he said HAVE U RECIEVED HOLY GHOST SINCE U BELEIVED. what do u think he would mean.. he would mean what he said.. and if someone answered i havent heard of holy ghost wouldnt u beleive them... so when your out evangelizing and u ask someone have u recieved holy ghost and they said they havent heard of holy ghost wouldnt u believe they were unsaved? SECONDLY you contradicted yourself when u say SEALED.. now i agree with you that SALVATION IS WHEN YOUR SEALED WITH HOLY GHOST... so to be SEALED WITH HOLY GHOST HOLY SPIRIT MUST BE ON "INSIDE" OF YOU.. therefore apostles in acts 2 was not sealed before holy ghost, acts 8 was not sealed until v16. acts 10 was not sealed until v 44 and acts 19 v.6.. THIS IS FIRST TIME HOLY SPIRIT CAME TO RESIDE "IN" THEM... and as far as people being saved BEFORE CHRIST WAS EXALTED ON HIGH it was different dispensation.. DID THE SPIRIT OF GOD HAVE TO RESIDE IN PEOPLE PERMANENTLY BEFORE HE WENT BACK TO HEAVEN TO BE SAVED? ANSWER IS NO... so i ask you does the HOLY SPIRIT have to RESIDE IN a person for them to be saved NOW? and as far a luke 11:13 you say that i confirmed what your saying.. well look at it again... we are saying same thing ACCEPT your calling it the filling that he promised IM CALLING it THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT period... Jesus was promising the HOLY SPIRIT TO RESIDE ON INSIDE(NEW CONVENANT).. its are terminolgy that is conflicting.. when Jesus said anyone who ask for HOLY SPIRIT.. he didnt call it the filling.. HE SAID ASK FOR "THE" HOLY SPIRIT... so one who didnt have the holy spirit would ask... THOSE DISCIPLES NEVER HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT "IN" THEM YET... THATS MY POIINT.. so in ACTS 2,8,10,19 is that not the FIRST TIME THESE GROUPS RECIEVED THE HOLY SPIRIT? (then when scripture explains it i think we both call that baptizm of holy spirit or filling) so WE BOTH LABEL IT AS BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT... so with calling those events THE BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT we can now look to see WHEN people recieve baptism of holy spirit.. like i showed before all those events was THE FIRST TIME THEY JUST NOW RECIEVED HOLY SPIRIT.. i believe you said in ACTS 19 they already had holy spirit(indwelt/sealed) when paul ask did they recieve holy spirit.. thats adding interpretation to fit YOUR BELIEF.. oh and as satanic tongues what i was saying was ITS POSSIBLE someone in cults and foreign countries and etc speak in tongues that are not of God.. but i was commenting on how most WHO HAVENT SPOKE IN TONGUES always say its satanic just because they never did it.. and im sorry if you take it that i was trying to question your salvation ... i wasnt doing that.. and i dont even know u so what does it matter what i think about if u was saved or not.. but now i will admit, its shocking to say that you was saved AT 5 yrs old... earlier i thoughth u was saying u was saved at 15 or something.. but 5.. the only question about that is WHAT DID YOU REPENT OF... what did u turn from? what was you doing that made u realize that you was living for satan? at age of 5 what convinced u that HOLY SPIRIT CAME IN YOU.. and as far as saving money on ticket its my DUTY to go anywhere at anytime to CONTEND FOR THE FAITH.. but truthfully i actually like debating with you cause it helps me study more.. God bless.. i hope u understand my answer of people being saved before CHRIST GOING BACK TO HEAVEN.. now that He did that THE CONVENANT IS HE WILL SEND THE COMFORTER TO DWELL IN US AND CAUSE US TO BE ABLE TO WALK IN HIS WAY.. notice.. HE will lead us.. and IM FAR FROM WORKS SALVATION.. thats why i always focus on WE MUST HAVE SPIRIT.... cause if we get sealed, BUT NOT YET HAVE POWER , then wouldnt that ADMIT your trusting in your works and your power to carry out commands. i know if it wasnt for GODs act of grace and HIS POWER TO DWELL IN ME, i would have never changed and never been able to keep going.. and trust me i knwo what u mean by discpline and chastening when we commit sins.. God bless.
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 8, 2009 at 11:14pm
u was getting discipline and chastening at age of 5... why would u be chastened for something u never had power to do in first place.. if didnt even have power to live a more dedicated life why would u be chastened for it if u wasnt provided with power to do it.. i can see if u had power and decide to avoid spirits promtings.. and just for this moment i will take ur view, my daughter is 6 yrs old .. she says she loves JESUS, she goes to church faithfully, we pray and read the word. she asks questions all the time. she says she cant wait to see Jesus...i just ask do u think she is SEALED ALREADY,, since she is able to think and speak like that.. so would she be born again.. cause she shocked me last month and asked to get prayed over to recieve baptism of holy spirit (empowerment).. so wouldnt that mean she already has the holy spirit, just needs empowerment.. and im serious about this.. i didnt want to believe it was possible but when u say u was just 5 maybe it is..thanks
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on April 9, 2009 at 6:45am
Hey Greg R.,

to start off u did say you use to be in penecostal church. Please show me where you think I was in a Pentecostal church? I never said it. I am in a charismatic church.


and as far as why did phillip baptized simon you answered it perferct... because he made a profession of faith.. thats all that is need to be baptized.. u dont have to wait until someone has the sign of being saved. so do u beleive everyone who makes a profession IS SAVED ALREADY.. go back and read scripture and see they did not have HOLY SPIRIT YET... v15-16. You are the one who has linked the filling of the Holy Spirit to salvation in your previous comments. Now you try to turn your statement back on me when my comment is refuting what you said. That is the point. A person can be saved through Christ. In this salvation experience they receive the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. They are marked for salvation. This is a clear as it can get. They had not yet been filled. You again substantiate my argument.


these people DID NOT YET HAVE HOLY GHOST YET.. as far as acts 19 you say they did have holy spirit before being filled... wow.. so your calling them liars.. they said THEY HAVENT HEARD OF HOLY SPIRIT... it didnt say anything about not know what it means to be filled after being sealed.. THEY SAID THEY NEVER HEARD OF HOLY SPIRIT.. THAT MEANS THEY DIDNT HAVE HOLY SPIRIT.. now thats two times you would be arguing against scriptrue not with me.. They said that they had not heard of the Holy Spirit….that is what they said. You say that that means that they didn’t have him. They do not believe on the Holy Spirit for salvation, but upon Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. What Jesus does in that transforming moment is what you are arguing against. You say that God cannot come into a person and save them unless they know of the filling of God’s Spirit. So salvation is in Jesus and the Holy Spirit’s name? In your opinion I fight against Scripture. You are welcome to your view. I disagree with you.


if paul was here today and u heard him walk in ur church and he said HAVE U RECIEVED HOLY GHOST SINCE U BELEIVED. what do u think he would mean.. he would mean what he said.. and if someone answered i havent heard of holy ghost wouldnt u beleive them... so when your out evangelizing and u ask someone have u recieved holy ghost and they said they havent heard of holy ghost wouldnt u believe they were unsaved? Do you tell people “Receive the Holy Spirit so that you may be saved?” Or is the emphasis on Jesus Christ and His redemptive work? I present Jesus and when a person receives Jesus they receive….the deposit and are marked, not the manifested presence, though it can happen at that time. This is where you keep missing it in my opinion. You suppose that unless there is a manifestation in the physical realm that nothing has happened in the spiritual realm.

What would Paul say? Can you speak for Paul? I will venture a guess, since I cannot speak for Paul, and my guess will be based upon Scripture as I read it trusting in the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, of Whom we are talking about. He would explain the Deeper-Life teaching.


SECONDLY you contradicted yourself when u say SEALED.. now i agree with you that SALVATION IS WHEN YOUR SEALED WITH HOLY GHOST... so to be SEALED WITH HOLY GHOST HOLY SPIRIT MUST BE ON "INSIDE" OF YOU.. therefore apostles in acts 2 was not sealed before holy ghost, acts 8 was not sealed until v16. acts 10 was not sealed until v 44 and acts 19 v.6.. THIS IS FIRST TIME HOLY SPIRIT CAME TO RESIDE "IN" THEM... I stated that is my opinion if you read back to the original comment. Do you know how the Spirit of God works? Read the command in Luke 24:49. Jesus tells the disciple to stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” This does not say that they were not transformed after the resurrection or were not saved and transformed before the day of Pentecost. It says that they lacked power from on high. Prove that the Holy Spirit could not and did not change them from the old man to the new man before Pentecost. You cannot. He did not say wait there and hope nothing goes wrong, because you are in a precarious situation until Pentecost, for if you die in-between you would be lost, because even though you believe in me, you are not actually saved as of yet. Acts 1:8 says that you will receive power, not salvation, but power. Is this not the same power that they experienced when Jesus sent out the twelve and the seventy two to perform miracles? What was the cause of the miracles? Was the Holy Spirit not with them and upon them? Why did David say in Psalms 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me?

One last thing. What does “be clothed” and “come on you” mean? This speaks of the empowerment and does not refer to the indwelling actually.


and as far as people being saved BEFORE CHRIST WAS EXALTED ON HIGH it was different dispensation.. DID THE SPIRIT OF GOD HAVE TO RESIDE IN PEOPLE PERMANENTLY BEFORE HE WENT BACK TO HEAVEN TO BE SAVED? ANSWER IS NO... Different dispensations, yes. Same God and same plan that has unfolded over the course of human history. If you study dispensations theology and covenant theology you find and unfolding and all look to the same source of salvation….Jesus, the Messiah/Christ.

Now you refute your on argument or try to give a clause through dispensations. If the O.T. saints were saved without having the Spirit of God residing in them, why would Peter and the rest be held to a different standard prior to Pentecost if they believed in Jesus, but as you put it could not have had a transforming experience of salvation that brings the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that all who died during the time span of Jesus birth and Pentecost were lost because they were between dispensations?


so i ask you does the HOLY SPIRIT have to RESIDE IN a person for them to be saved NOW? and as far a luke 11:13 you say that i confirmed what your saying.. well look at it again... we are saying same thing ACCEPT your calling it the filling that he promised IM CALLING it THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT period... Shall I speak for God to say what is necessary? What does the Bible say that we have to believe in in order to be saved? When one accepts Jesus as Savior they receive the Holy Spirit to indwell as the deposit and marking them for salvation. The filling is different from the indwelling at salvation.


Jesus was promising the HOLY SPIRIT TO RESIDE ON INSIDE(NEW CONVENANT).. its are terminolgy that is conflicting.. when Jesus said anyone who ask for HOLY SPIRIT.. he didnt call it the filling.. HE SAID ASK FOR "THE" HOLY SPIRIT... so one who didnt have the holy spirit would ask... The context prior to Luke 11:13 is gifts. This is not speaking to salvation or indwelling, but seeking the good gifts of God that only come through the Holy Spirit when one is filled. There is no conflict here.


THOSE DISCIPLES NEVER HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT "IN" THEM YET... THATS MY POIINT.. so in ACTS 2,8,10,19 is that not the FIRST TIME THESE GROUPS RECIEVED THE HOLY SPIRIT? (then when scripture explains it i think we both call that baptizm of holy spirit or filling) so WE BOTH LABEL IT AS BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT... so with calling those events THE BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT we can now look to see WHEN people recieve baptism of holy spirit.. like i showed before all those events was THE FIRST TIME THEY JUST NOW RECIEVED HOLY SPIRIT.. It only proves that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. It does not speak to the indwelling that comes at salvation.


i believe you said in ACTS 19 they already had holy spirit(indwelt/sealed) when paul ask did they recieve holy spirit.. thats adding interpretation to fit YOUR BELIEF.. Interesting perspective you have of what I think. I do not twist Scripture to fit my belief. I believe what Scripture says and then walk in faith according to that revealed truth without adding to Scripture.


oh and as satanic tongues what i was saying was ITS POSSIBLE someone in cults and foreign countries and etc speak in tongues that are not of God.. but i was commenting on how most WHO HAVENT SPOKE IN TONGUES always say its satanic just because they never did it.. and im sorry if you take it that i was trying to question your salvation ... i wasnt doing that.. and i dont even know u so what does it matter what i think about if u was saved or not.. Understood and we will move on.


but now i will admit, its shocking to say that you was saved AT 5 yrs old... earlier i thoughth u was saying u was saved at 15 or something.. but 5.. the only question about that is WHAT DID YOU REPENT OF... what did u turn from? what was you doing that made u realize that you was living for satan? at age of 5 what convinced u that HOLY SPIRIT CAME IN YOU.. God revealed to me my dark heart and need for the Savior Jesus. I was aware of my being born into sinfulness and that Jesus died for my sins. The Holy Spirit brought these truths to light at that age. Repentance is not only a laying of a sin at God’s feet. It is also a change of mind. I came into agreement with God regarding my sinful nature/state and my need for a Savior. What convinced me I was saved? The Word of God and assurance that came into my life, which I now realize was the work of the Holy Spirit. I have never doubted my salvation since.


and as far as saving money on ticket its my DUTY to go anywhere at anytime to CONTEND FOR THE FAITH.. but truthfully i actually like debating with you cause it helps me study more.. God bless.
Understood and agreed that we are to contend for the faith. Thus, the reason for this debate and spending the time to engage in it. Still think the ticket would be a waste of time and money :-)


. i hope u understand my answer of people being saved before CHRIST GOING BACK TO HEAVEN.. now that He did that THE CONVENANT IS HE WILL SEND THE COMFORTER TO DWELL IN US AND CAUSE US TO BE ABLE TO WALK IN HIS WAY.. notice.. HE will lead us.. and IM FAR FROM WORKS SALVATION.. thats why i always focus on WE MUST HAVE SPIRIT.... cause if we get sealed, BUT NOT YET HAVE POWER , then wouldnt that ADMIT your trusting in your works and your power to carry out commands. i know if it wasnt for GODs act of grace and HIS POWER TO DWELL IN ME, i would have never changed and never been able to keep going.. and trust me i knwo what u mean by discpline and chastening when we commit sins.. God bless. That is the point. We see through slightly different glasses. We cannot accomplish anything to acquire salvation and that includes a perfected walk after we are filled in order to keep it. Jesus paid the price in full, not just to give the Holy Spirit, but to redeem us fully when we receive Him as Savior. The purpose of Acts 1:8 is all about effective service, not the ability to retain our salvation through a perfected walk. What does it mean to have the written code that stood against us nailed to the cross? What does it mean to be covered in the blood? Thus, the terminology we use is “The Deeper-Spirit Filled Life.” This is a life that has been set apart for kingdom effectiveness.

u was getting discipline and chastening at age of 5.. Did I say when the disciplines I receive started? No.


.why would u be chastened for something u never had power to do in first place.. if didnt even have power to live a more dedicated life why would u be chastened for it if u wasnt provided with power to do it.. i can see if u had power and decide to avoid spirits promtings.. Sin has consequences and the Word of God reveals what sin is. The Holy Spirit indwelling the believer after salvation also convicts us of our sin. For the child of God receives divine discipline over our disobedience. For the one who has not been filled with the Spirit of God it is a step toward the crisis moment when we realize we cannot live the Christ-like life without being filled with the Holy Spirit.


and just for this moment i will take ur view, my daughter is 6 yrs old .. she says she loves JESUS, she goes to church faithfully, we pray and read the word. she asks questions all the time. she says she cant wait to see Jesus...i just ask do u think she is SEALED ALREADY,, since she is able to think and speak like that.. so would she be born again.. cause she shocked me last month and asked to get prayed over to recieve baptism of holy spirit (empowerment).. so wouldnt that mean she already has the holy spirit, just needs empowerment.. and im serious about this.. i didnt want to believe it was possible but when u say u was just 5 maybe it is..thanks Let start by saying, I do not know her, thus can only speculate. If she believed in Jesus and accepted Him then she is saved and sealed. If this is her case, that she did accept Him, based on her profession of Him and love for Him, brother, would this not prove to you that she was saved and realized at this young age that something was missing and she even knew what that something is, it was the filling of God’s Spirit.

To any who are following this thread, I will speak for us and let Greg respond if he feels led to agree or disagree with my comment. We are not arguing, but debating the Word of God with passion. We are showing respect to each other as we handle a extremely hot topic. Do not go away discouraged thinking that we cannot get along, because that is far from the case. Be encouraged that we can debate this tough topic and still express the love of Jesus for one another. I fear too often we fear debates like this because of the fear of offending, but we only grow through such engagements when it stays civil, for we are discussing the Word of God.

Lord bless ya Greg,
LT
Permalink Reply by GREG ROBY on April 9, 2009 at 10:37am
amen LT. i agree 100%. these debates are healthy and keeps one another accountable. i do consider Lt as my brother in Christ. and im glad he and i are mature enough not to fly off the handle in debate.. people take debates as a bad thing. on other hand Lt. what im saying is that THE BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT IS THE BORN AGAIN EXPERIENCE.. thats our only real disagreement.. as far as old testament and new testament GOD said HE WOULD PLACE IS SPIRIT (IN) US to seal us permanently... thats why i keep pointing to rom.8:9 which says MUST have IN us to be His.. scripture clearly shows that the holy spirit came to RESIDE IN US at pentecost.. i clearly showed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to have SPIRIT ON INSIDE OF THEM BEFORE JESUS WAS TAKEN BACK UP.. so in acts 1:4 He gave a promise to send the HOLY SPIRIT. to promise to send holy spirit was to mean that they didnt have the Spirit yet and couldnt have cause it would of caused contradiction of scriptures let alone JESUS OWN WORDS.. JOHN 16:7. WANT U TO look at JOHN 14:17 .. notice Jesus says.. he dwelleth with you BUT SHALL BE IN YOU.. big difference. so what im saying is when Jesus promised the RECIEVING OF HOLY GHOST, THAT IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST.. same thing.. thats my main point.. how tongues comes in is in the DEBATE WITH ASSEMBLIES OF GOD.. they believe that the recieving of holy ghost IS SEPERATE from the baptism of holy ghost.. they simular in a way to your view... they say one recieves the holy ghost for salvation, then recieves the baptism of holy ghost( for empowerment).. so i debated with a pastor about it and he said that it is a seperate happening... in his debate is point was to say that prior to pentecost those apostles had recieved the indwelling of holy ghost prior before Jesus being taken up.. in acts 8 10 19 he said they recieved indwelling spirit before the baptism of holy ghost.. then after showed him in office he could say that the SCRIPTURES show that they had already recieved indwelling.. he then saw that the scriptures was clear that it did show that the people RECIEVED THE HOLY GHOST AND HE CALLED THAT THE BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST.. so thats what im saying if u call it baptism of holy ghost then notice that the scriptures only talk about that event happening BUT ITS ALSO THE FIRST TIME THEY RECIEVED HOLY SPIRIT... point being no seperation.. and with the assemblies of GOD even though the view it as seperation from salvation THEY DO SAY THAT BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST(EMPOWERMENT) IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED WITH SIGN OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES... so i wondered u have asssemblies of GOd who would agree with you that the empowerment is seperate from salvation, but they say they see in scripture that the empowerment IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY EVIDENCE IN TONGUES.. so where do u fit in. u disagree with me that its not a seperate thing from salvation, but yet to disagree with them about what will be the sign of empowerment.. thats interesting. and as far as looking back at history of ASSEMBLIES OF GOD they split of THE BAPTISM IN NAME OF JESUS.. because others was being REBAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS.. and also problem with ONENESS DOCTRINE VS. TRINITY.. they both AGREE THAT SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS ALWAYS THE SIGN THAT FOLLOWS BAPTISM OF HOLY GHOST.. i want to say that again they both agree that tongues is ALWAYS sign of baptism of holy spirit. and i do believe in your response to the lady who was confused about this situation you started off saying to her that you started out in a pentecostal church. did u not say that to her? and from ur response to her i replied to you cause thats what got my attention.. you may have said now your a pastor of a charismatic church NOW... but u did say to her that you was from a pentecostal church i do believe if not i apologize but please go back and look... GOd bless

RSS

The Good News

Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate

Click here to learn more.

© 2024   Created by AllAboutGOD.com.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!