Baptism in water vs Baptism in Holy Spirit

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Alanforchrist,

Where is scripture to support your statement, specifically in respect of Paul?


Just for the record - and not to antagonise anyone any more than they already feel - if you think about natural birth, (which I believe is modeled on spiritual birth) - there is no spirit (breath) in the baby, until the baby is in the spirit (air). In other words, until the baby is 'baptised in the Spirit', it is not 'born again' - ie separated from the old flesh (its mother) by which it used to draw its 'life'. This is the foundation of the teaching that the baptism in the Spirit is the catalyst for new birth in the era since Pentecost. You can tell me that the baby is alive in the womb. Yes, but it is totally dependent on its mother for most of its time there. The 'spirit' which diffuses from her blood stream to the baby's, goes through two cell barriers, and the baby's heart pumps a mixture of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood round a two way circulatory system, while it is in the womb.

Not until it is physically born, and the umbilical cord stops supplying it with oxygenated blood, does the combination of the new action of its lungs, and the rise in blood pressure which follows the infusion of cord blood, cause the fetal structures in the circulatory system begin immediately to close down, so that - as it has received 'a new spirit' - the baby (also) receives (effectively) 'a new heart', that no longer pumps 'mixture' round its body. These are facts.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


I fully, fully, fully accept that many people experience baptism in the Spirit subsequently to having come to faith in Christ and received a measure of the Spirit within, and that we can call this new birth, but.... there is no evidence that any of the disciples had actually been 'born again' before the day of Pentecost, even though Jesus had breathed on them and offered them the Holy Spirit. Or, let us say that if they were 'born again' ('from above', by the definition John gives in the first chapter of his gospel, vv 12, 13), then it was an entirely powerless experience for them.

The problem with the theory that they were born again but powerless, is that it is not mirrored in natural birth. Most babies cry immediately, and their tiny lungs are extremely powerful. Although they may not have intellectual understanding of their situation, they have instantly developed a whole new set of hungers and needs, and nothing stops them from the attempt to have these hungers and needs filled as soon as possible. Not only are they no longer confined in the darkness of the womb where sounds are muffled, they have a liberty of movement which was hitherto unknown to them. They are now children of the light, where they see with new eyes, and sounds are heard with great clarity, with their 'new' ears.

The idea that a person who is born again from above by the Holy Spirit, does not yet have the power and gifts of the Spirit, is foreign to scripture.

But, many believers do not experience 'the baptism in the Spirit' with their first step of faith, and God graciously draws them to Himself, until they do.

[1] Itsn't it strange that every time peiople in the Bible spoke in tongues as soon as they were baptised in the Holy Ghost, Yet the might Apostle Paul didn't...According to you.

When did Paul speak in tongues????., They same time the others did, When he received the baptism in the Holy Ghost.


[2] The baptsim in the Holy Ghost ISN'T the rebirth...Act 8: 14--17, And Acts 9: 6--17. Acts 19: 2--6 proves it.
They were saved, Born again, But not baptised in the Holy Ghost unti the Apostles laid their hands on them.

Some of the disciples were born again in Jn 20: 22 when Jesus breathed the Spirit into them,
Peter certainly was, Because one of the Greek words that he used fo love, In Jn 21: 15--17, Is Agape, [The love of God],
You cannot love with the Agape love of God unless you are born again.....So Peter and some other disciples were born again then,..So you was wrong when you said there is no evidence that any of the disciples had actually been 'born again' before the day of Pentecost,
And Jesus said , "YOU SHALL RECEIVEPOWER AFTER THE HOLY GHOST COMES UPON YOU".
Whch just proves that the rebirth alone doesn't give us the power.

Plus Matt 3: 11 says Jesus will baptise us with the Holy Ghost and fire, The "Fire" is the Holiness that consumes everything that is inconsistance with a holy life..So Every Christian needs to be baptised in the Holy Ghost.
And the Biblical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, Is, Speaking in tongues.

 

[dragonfly]

To Paul's question

1 Corinthians 12:30 ... do all speak with tongues? ... clearly from your statements, you believe all do, even though Paul's point is, that all don't.

Therefore, from any testimony that a person does not speak in tongues, you infer they have not received baptism in the Spirit.


Have I understood you correctly?

 

[IanLC]

This has been argued on this forum so many times. There are those who do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost and some that do. Some that do not believe in speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance and some do. Shy, you must study for yourself (2 Timothy 2:15) and ask God for His leading and direction because there are wolves in sheep clothing on both sides of the debate over the baptism of the Holy Ghost and as a novice and newborn in Christ Jesus the Word of God and your pastor or another mature Christian should be your closest things.

I personally in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11). And from prayer, and my interpretation of scripture I believe that speaking in tongues as the HOLY SPIRIT gives utterance not you or I or because someone tells you that you should but as the Holy Ghost speaks you will utter is one of the evidences of the infilling of the Holy Ghost it was and is the first (initial) biblical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Through out the Old Testament we see when the Holy ghost came on individuals they would prophesy which is an estatic utterance. In the New Testament when the Holy Ghost infilled individuals they gave an estatic utternace of tongues as the Holy Ghost spoke through them. As I stated this is my personal belief and stems from much prayer, personal study and teaching from my pastor and other mature Christians. When I received the infilling of the Holy Ghost I did speak in tongues but to me more than tongues HOLINESS and sanctification are the main indicators and evidences of the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 12:14).

Abundant Blessings,
UHCAlan

 

[Alanforchrist]

To Paul's question

1 Corinthians 12:30 ... do all speak with tongues? ... clearly from your statements, you believe all do, even though Paul's point is, that all don't.

Therefore, from any testimony that a person does not speak in tongues, you infer they have not received baptism in the Spirit.


Have I understood you correctly?

Please keep the Bible in it's right context, When Paul said, "Do all speak in tongues", He was refering to the tongues that are for interpretating, Not any of the other seven manifestations of tongues.
1 Cor 12: 10, "To another, divers kinds of tongues, To another the interpretation of tongues",
V30, "do allspeak in tongues,Do all interpret?",

You put, Do all speak in tongues, But you dileberately left out, "Do all interpret"....Naughty.

As I said, Keep the Bible in it's right context, And stop taking scriptures out of context.

All I can tell you, Is what the Bible says,, Which id,
The Biblical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, Is speaking in tongues,

This has been argued on this forum so many times. There are those who do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost and some that do. Some that do not believe in speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance and some do. Shy, you must study for yourself (2 Timothy 2:15) and ask God for His leading and direction because there are wolves in sheep clothing on both sides of the debate over the baptism of the Holy Ghost and as a novice and newborn in Christ Jesus the Word of God and your pastor or another mature Christian should be your closest things.

I personally in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11). And from prayer, and my interpretation of scripture I believe that speaking in tongues as the HOLY SPIRIT gives utterance not you or I or because someone tells you that you should but as the Holy Ghost speaks you will utter is one of the evidences of the infilling of the Holy Ghost it was and is the first (initial) biblical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Through out the Old Testament we see when the Holy ghost came on individuals they would prophesy which is an estatic utterance. In the New Testament when the Holy Ghost infilled individuals they gave an estatic utternace of tongues as the Holy Ghost spoke through them. As I stated this is my personal belief and stems from much prayer, personal study and teaching from my pastor and other mature Christians. When I received the infilling of the Holy Ghost I did speak in tongues but to me more than tongues HOLINESS and sanctification are the main indicators and evidences of the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 12:14).

Abundant Blessings,
UHCAlan

One can be Holy and sanctified without being baptised in the Holy Ghost, I know from personal experience, As I was born again five months before I was baptised in the Holy Ghost, Yet I was living a Holy santified life before I was baptised in the Holy Ghost.
And no one can speak in tongues without being baptised in the Holy Ghost.

But you are right, The baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire,does give added power to live a Holy life.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Alan,

You put, Do all speak in tongues, But you dileberately left out, "Do all interpret"....Naughty.

I also took out the question which was placed by Paul immediately in front of 'Do all speak in tongues'.

And, as you yourself have pointed out several times, there are tongues that do not need interpretation, because they are known tongues.


All I would like you to acknowledge is: there are people whose ministry declares that they are baptised in the Holy Spirit, who do not speak in tongues.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Alan,



I also took out the question which was placed by Paul immediately in front of 'Do all speak in tongues'.

And, as you yourself have pointed out several times, there are tongues that do not need interpretation, because they are known tongues.


All I would like you to acknowledge is: there are people whose ministry declares that they are baptised in the Holy Spirit, who do not speak in tongues.

None of the God given tongues are know,
There at eight manifestations of tongues, And NONE of them are known to the speaker.

Al I can say to those people who say they are baptised in the Holy Ghost, Is.
The Biblical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost, Is speaking in tongues.
You can argue with God if you want, And they can argues with God, But I will accpet and believe the Bible.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Alan,

None of the God given tongues are know,
There at eight manifestations of tongues, And NONE of them are known to the speaker.

In the case of Acts 2, the people who heard the tongues understood what they meant, and they gave the interpretation to the people speaking in tongues.

The gift of interpretation operates, usually, during assembly meetings, where there is no-one present who recognises the tongue (an 'unknown' tongue).

I acknowledge that the speaker needs to receive the interpretation, too. Also, sometimes the Lord will give the interpretation to the person who gave the tongue. But always, there is a need for others present to recognise the status of the word being brought in their mother tongue, as it is not always the interpretation which comes next, and those present should seek the Lord for the interpretation, if possible. As I said before, it may be that someone who has never given a tongue before, or someone who has never given an interpretation before, are used in this way on that occasion.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Alan,



In the case of Acts 2, the people who heard the tongues understood what they meant, and they gave the interpretation to the people speaking in tongues.

The gift of interpretation operates, usually, during assembly meetings, where there is no-one present who recognises the tongue (an 'unknown' tongue).

I acknowledge that the speaker needs to receive the interpretation, too. Also, sometimes the Lord will give the interpretation to the person who gave the tongue. But always, there is a need for others present to recognise the status of the word being brought in their mother tongue, as it is not always the interpretation which comes next, and those present should seek the Lord for the interpretation, if possible. As I said before, it may be that someone who has never given a tongue before, or someone who has never given an interpretation before, are used in this way on that occasion.

[1]The people in Acts 2 didn't give the interpretation, They just heard the disciples speaking in their language.

[2]The speaker doesn't need the interpretation, Although he can have an iterpretation.

[3]The interpretation isn't an earthly language.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Alan,

[1] Acts 2:11 '... we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.' That was the interpretation which the disciples needed to hear.

[2] The speaker doesn't need the interpretation,...

The speaker does need the interpretation, because God is speaking to him too.

God expects him to pay attention to the ministry coming out of his own mouth.

How do I know that? Because this is what Paul teaches in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. The minister should be affected by his gift.

[3]The interpretation isn't an earthly language.

Is this a typo???


Of course the interpretation is 'an earthly language'. That is the whole point of the interpretation - to edify the understanding of those present.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied:
for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

 

[aussie]

this is such a controversial topic; I have much I could say regarding this topic;
Eph 1: 13 says we are sealed with Holy Spirit when born again; that is what the believers in upper room had before Pentecost outpouring had.
So something extra was given to them on that day and Holy Spirit used them with the gift of "tongues for unbelievers" as shown by all hearers hearing them in their own languages; one use of tongues.

 

[Rex]

All I can tell you, Is what the Bible says,, Which id,
The Biblical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, Is speaking in tongues,

Here's the full article
http://www.letusreason.org/pent12.htm


The book of Acts gives us the normal pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit. One thing
becomes clear as the texts are looked at carefully, there is no consistent pattern of
reception. In order for something to be normative it needs to be consistent and a common
thing to all. Not all spoke in tongue's.

If we look carefully through the book of Acts There are only three references to
believers speaking in tongues when salvation was given. Acts 2 those in the upper room who
did not know what they were waiting for. Acts 10 the spirit falls on them while the
message is given. Acts 19 to those who had not heard of the holy Spirit. The Samaritans
did not speak in tongues in Acts 8 nor did the majority of those who were saved. Starting
in chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost those who came from the upper room spoke in tongues
to the Jews that were in Jerusalem who were in unbelief. Acts 2:41 tells us there were
three thousand that entered into the church that day. The 3,000 that were saved were added
to the church WITHOUT speaking in tongues, nor were there tongues of fire over them or
anyone else that received the Spirit. If one is going to make the tongues as the evidence
why not the fire over their heads too?


Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” There were tongues! But
this was limited to those in the upper room, it does not say that those who experienced
the salvation from Peter's message spoke in tongues.

Peter proclaimed to the Jews after they were filled with the spirit and spoke in
tongues, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, (Greek-by the authority of) in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) If the requirement of speaking in tongues were necessary
for salvation, would he not have included it here? This “evidence” is all based upon
three verses in the book of Acts that presumes that when someone receives the Holy Spirit,
they spoke in tongues.


Acts 3:18-19 the topic is Christ’s death, and repentance is the focus for the
forgiveness of their sins.

In Acts 4:2-4 Jesus & the resurrection is preached, not baptism & again they
believed the word and 5,000 were saved. There was no tongues!


Acts 4:31 tells us they spoke the word boldly when they were filled with the
spirit. There was no tongues


Acts 8:17 While Philip was a miracle worker without being an apostle he was an
apostolic legate. It was only through the apostles presence that supernatural gifts were
manifested. Peter and John came to the Samaritans who had already received the word of God
and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and still did not have the Spirit. ( Peter
needed to be there; he was present for all three groups salvation -- the Jews, the
Samaritans, the Gentiles). There was some type of outward sign it doesn’t tell us what
exactly what it was (Simon saw this and wanted this power). It could have been tongues
or prophecy or both, since both are noticeable.


Acts 8:37-38 After hearing Isa.53 which is about the death of Jesus he asks to be
baptized, Philip replies if you believe with all your heart. He confesses Jesus is the son
of God. When they were come up
out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Phillip, that the eunuch saw him no
more: and he went on his way rejoicing. There were no tongues, but he had
the joy of the Lord. Joy is part of the fruit of the Spirit.


Acts 9:17-18 when Paul received salvation he did not speak in tongues until later,
yet no one would contest he was saved on the road to Damascus. When he gives his
testimony he refers back to the Damascus road encounter as the time of his Spiritual birth
(lCor.15:18, Gal.1:12). There were no tongues. He does speak in tongues
later, as probably all the apostles did.


Acts 10:43 Peter says “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. We have the exact
reversal of Acts 2 they then received the Spirit before baptism, from hearing the word
& believing. The Gentiles spoke in tongues as proof of their salvation to some of the
unbelieving Jews present. (They did not believe anyone but Jews could be saved up until
then). Acts 11:16-18 Peter recounts the Lord saying about the difference between
water baptism and spirit baptism. Vs 17 “ if therefore God gave them the same gift as he
did unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.”


Acts 16:31 the Phillipian jailer asks what must I do to be saved ? answer
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. then they
spoke the word of the Lord to both him & his household. What we find in the book of
Acts is no set formulae for the giving of the Spirit. There were no tongues.


Acts 19 Jews who only received Johns baptism had not heard of Christ’s
death and resurrection nor Pentecost. It is Paul who initiates the conversation on the Holy
Spirit. He finds that they are not disciples of Christ but of John, years after they had
not heard that the one John was pointing to had already come. After receiving the Gospel
they are baptized Paul lays hands on them the Holy Spirit comes upon them and they
speak in tongues and prophecy. They did not seek after the Spirit as
Pentecostals are told to do. Not one instance do we see anyone laboring for the Spirit.
Why was the Spirit given after Paul laid hands on them. It was to illustrate that they
were no longer to follow John the Baptizer but the apostles who now had the leadership
role for Israel. The church with the apostles replaced the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and
even John the Baptist.

In each case when tongues are manifested there are Jews present (being in unbelief).
The conclusion can only be that that tongues were given primarily as a sign to unbelieving
Jews (Isa.28) or to those new people groups entering the body. As with Acts 10 they were
in unbelief that the gentiles could be saved and so God gave them the Holy Spirit and as
proof gave them languages unlearned for evidence to those present that they received what
they had at Pentecost. In Acts 19 the tongues that the unbelieving Jews spoke in that were
only water baptized was proof to them that Jesus died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit
had come.

Acts 2:4: “And they (disciples) were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Not one verse
of Scripture can be found that says it is necessary to speak in tongues to be saved or
have salvation. Nowhere in the word of God is it found! In fact we find it was whole
groups of people together, not individuals. The same type of event is repeated in
Acts10:46, ‘For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” Also Acts 19:6,
“And when Paul laid hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them (baptism); and they
spoke with tongues and prophesied.” These are the only verses in the New Testament
(besides Pentecost) where speaking with tongues are mentioned in connection with the
receiving of the Spirit of Christ. there are just as many without a physical evidence of
tongues as there are with.

 

[IanLC]

As I stated above tongues is the first evidence but holiness is the main evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost!

 

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Alan,

[1] Acts 2:11 '... we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.' That was the interpretation which the disciples needed to hear.

The speaker does need the interpretation, because God is speaking to him too.

God expects him to pay attention to the ministry coming out of his own mouth.

How do I know that? Because this is what Paul teaches in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. The minister should be affected by his gift.

Is this a typo???


Of course the interpretation is 'an earthly language'. That is the whole point of the interpretation - to edify the understanding of those present.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied:
for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

[1]Who said the disciples needed to hear an interpretation in Acts 2??....Only you.

[2]The speaker in tongues doesn't know what he/she is saying. 1 Cor 14: 2.
Although they can pray for an interpretation, 1 Cor 14: 13.

[3]The gifts are to edify the whole body of Christ, So one will use a gift to edify others.

[4]All Spirit tongues are divine, And none of them are a nearthly language.

[5]All you have proved is, You don't know the Bible.

this is such a controversial topic; I have much I could say regarding this topic;
Eph 1: 13 says we are sealed with Holy Spirit when born again; that is what the believers in upper room had before Pentecost outpouring had.
So something extra was given to them on that day and Holy Spirit used them with the gift of "tongues for unbelievers" as shown by all hearers hearing them in their own languages; one use of tongues.

It isn't a controversial topic to those who know the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
We are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the rebirth, Most of the disciples were born again on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost came.
But some of the disciples were born again in Jn 20: 22, When Jesus breathed the Spirit into them.
Peter certainly was born again at that time, Because one of the words he used for "Love", In Jn 21: 15--17, Was, "Agape".
Agape is the Love of God, And you cannot love the agape love of God unless you are born of God, [Born again].

The tongues that were foreign languages on the day of Pentecost were just one of the manifestations of tongues,
1 Cor 14: 2, Says there are tongues that NO MAN will UNDERSTAND..So this is different to those on the day of Pentecost.
Then there are tongues that need an interpretation, This is another manifestation of tongues.

Here's the full article
http://www.letusreason.org/pent12.htm


The book of Acts gives us the normal pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit. One thing
becomes clear as the texts are looked at carefully, there is no consistent pattern of
reception. In order for something to be normative it needs to be consistent and a common
thing to all. Not all spoke in tongue's.

If we look carefully through the book of Acts There are only three references to
believers speaking in tongues when salvation was given. Acts 2 those in the upper room who
did not know what they were waiting for. Acts 10 the spirit falls on them while the
message is given. Acts 19 to those who had not heard of the holy Spirit. The Samaritans
did not speak in tongues in Acts 8 nor did the majority of those who were saved. Starting
in chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost those who came from the upper room spoke in tongues
to the Jews that were in Jerusalem who were in unbelief. Acts 2:41 tells us there were
three thousand that entered into the church that day. The 3,000 that were saved were added
to the church WITHOUT speaking in tongues, nor were there tongues of fire over them or
anyone else that received the Spirit. If one is going to make the tongues as the evidence
why not the fire over their heads too?


Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” There were tongues! But
this was limited to those in the upper room, it does not say that those who experienced
the salvation from Peter's message spoke in tongues.

Peter proclaimed to the Jews after they were filled with the spirit and spoke in
tongues, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, (Greek-by the authority of) in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) If the requirement of speaking in tongues were necessary
for salvation, would he not have included it here? This “evidence” is all based upon
three verses in the book of Acts that presumes that when someone receives the Holy Spirit,
they spoke in tongues.


Acts 3:18-19 the topic is Christ’s death, and repentance is the focus for the
forgiveness of their sins.

In Acts 4:2-4 Jesus & the resurrection is preached, not baptism & again they
believed the word and 5,000 were saved. There was no tongues!


Acts 4:31 tells us they spoke the word boldly when they were filled with the
spirit. There was no tongues


Acts 8:17 While Philip was a miracle worker without being an apostle he was an
apostolic legate. It was only through the apostles presence that supernatural gifts were
manifested. Peter and John came to the Samaritans who had already received the word of God
and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and still did not have the Spirit. ( Peter
needed to be there; he was present for all three groups salvation -- the Jews, the
Samaritans, the Gentiles). There was some type of outward sign it doesn’t tell us what
exactly what it was (Simon saw this and wanted this power). It could have been tongues
or prophecy or both, since both are noticeable.


Acts 8:37-38 After hearing Isa.53 which is about the death of Jesus he asks to be
baptized, Philip replies if you believe with all your heart. He confesses Jesus is the son
of God. When they were come up
out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Phillip, that the eunuch saw him no
more: and he went on his way rejoicing. There were no tongues, but he had
the joy of the Lord. Joy is part of the fruit of the Spirit.


Acts 9:17-18 when Paul received salvation he did not speak in tongues until later,
yet no one would contest he was saved on the road to Damascus. When he gives his
testimony he refers back to the Damascus road encounter as the time of his Spiritual birth
(lCor.15:18, Gal.1:12). There were no tongues. He does speak in tongues
later, as probably all the apostles did.


Acts 10:43 Peter says “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. We have the exact
reversal of Acts 2 they then received the Spirit before baptism, from hearing the word
& believing. The Gentiles spoke in tongues as proof of their salvation to some of the
unbelieving Jews present. (They did not believe anyone but Jews could be saved up until
then). Acts 11:16-18 Peter recounts the Lord saying about the difference between
water baptism and spirit baptism. Vs 17 “ if therefore God gave them the same gift as he
did unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.”


Acts 16:31 the Phillipian jailer asks what must I do to be saved ? answer
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. then they
spoke the word of the Lord to both him & his household. What we find in the book of
Acts is no set formulae for the giving of the Spirit. There were no tongues.


Acts 19 Jews who only received Johns baptism had not heard of Christ’s
death and resurrection nor Pentecost. It is Paul who initiates the conversation on the Holy
Spirit. He finds that they are not disciples of Christ but of John, years after they had
not heard that the one John was pointing to had already come. After receiving the Gospel
they are baptized Paul lays hands on them the Holy Spirit comes upon them and they
speak in tongues and prophecy. They did not seek after the Spirit as
Pentecostals are told to do. Not one instance do we see anyone laboring for the Spirit.
Why was the Spirit given after Paul laid hands on them. It was to illustrate that they
were no longer to follow John the Baptizer but the apostles who now had the leadership
role for Israel. The church with the apostles replaced the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and
even John the Baptist.

In each case when tongues are manifested there are Jews present (being in unbelief).
The conclusion can only be that that tongues were given primarily as a sign to unbelieving
Jews (Isa.28) or to those new people groups entering the body. As with Acts 10 they were
in unbelief that the gentiles could be saved and so God gave them the Holy Spirit and as
proof gave them languages unlearned for evidence to those present that they received what
they had at Pentecost. In Acts 19 the tongues that the unbelieving Jews spoke in that were
only water baptized was proof to them that Jesus died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit
had come.

Acts 2:4: “And they (disciples) were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Not one verse
of Scripture can be found that says it is necessary to speak in tongues to be saved or
have salvation. Nowhere in the word of God is it found! In fact we find it was whole
groups of people together, not individuals. The same type of event is repeated in
Acts10:46, ‘For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” Also Acts 19:6,
“And when Paul laid hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them (baptism); and they
spoke with tongues and prophesied.” These are the only verses in the New Testament
(besides Pentecost) where speaking with tongues are mentioned in connection with the
receiving of the Spirit of Christ. there are just as many without a physical evidence of
tongues as there are with.

I never said you need to speak in tongues to be saved.
Some of the disciples were btn again in Jn 20: 22, when Jesus breathed the Spirit into them, Peter was one of them, And he certainly was saved, [Born again] Then, Becuae one of the words he used for, "Love", In Jn 21: 15--17, Is "Agape".
Agape is the love of God, One cannot love God with the agape love unless they are born again.
So Peter and the other disciles that were in the room in Jn 20: 22, Wrre saved, But they nave rspoke in tongues until the day of Penecost whan the Holy Ghost came and baptised them.
The disciple would have been saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost.
It's the same with those in Acts 10, They heard and believed the gospel Acts 10:43, Got saved then baptised in the Holy Ghost.
Those disciples in Acts 8: 14--17, And Acts 19: 2--6 were saved but they didn't speak in tongues until the Apostles laid hands on them.

 

[rockytopva]

When the actual Holy Ghost enters the heart the recipient does not run around asking people "Do I have the Holy Spirit?"

As the scripture says...


16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: - Romans 8:16

 

[Alanforchrist]

When the actual Holy Ghost enters the heart the recipient does not run around asking people "Do I have the Holy Spirit?"

As the scripture says...


16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: - Romans 8:16

The recipient doesn't need to go around asking people if they have the Holy Spirit, They know they have Him.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rex,

(I've edited my reply to you as I submitted it accidentally incomplete.)

That is another great post! First, here are the points I particularly appreciated:

'The 3,000 that were saved were added to the church WITHOUT speaking in tongues, nor were there tongues of fire over them or anyone else that received the Spirit. If one is going to make the tongues as the evidence why not the fire over their heads too?'

'If the requirement of speaking in tongues were necessary for salvation, would he not have included it here? This “evidence” is all based upon three verses in the book of Acts that presumes that when someone receives the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues.'

'They did not seek after the Spirit as Pentecostals are told to do. Not one instance do we see anyone laboring for the Spirit. Why was the Spirit given after Paul laid hands on them. It was to illustrate that they were no longer to follow John the Baptizer but the apostles who now had the leadership
role for Israel. The church with the apostles replaced the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and even John the Baptist.'

But, there are some inconsistencies with scripture. I'm not sure if those are typos or details missed when paraphrasing the text. For instance, in Acts 19, no 'unbelieving Jews' spoke in tongues. Or, am I misunderstanding this particular statement? 'In Acts 19 the tongues that the unbelieving Jews spoke in that were only water baptized was proof to them that Jesus died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit had come.'

A separate comment from me about that event: before Paul laid his hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost, he had baptised them in water again in the name of Jesus. Imho this is one of the passages which supports the importance of baptism for salvation, since Peter also mentions water baptism in Acts 2 to the Jews gathered from all over the world, who had never had an opportunity to respond to John Baptist's ministry. Thus, rather than making the thief on the cross the reason for demoting water baptism, surely he is the exception?

Also, I would like to challenge this statement about Philip:

While Philip was a miracle worker without being an apostle he was an apostolic legate. It was only through the apostles presence that supernatural gifts were manifested.

My reasons for believing Philip was an apostle are that he is just as present as others of the eleven disciples (some of whom are not mentioned in the NT at all), all the way through the gospels, every time they were sent out, (or commissioned), including after Christ's resurrection in John 20:21 (when all the disciples' commissions were renewed by our risen Lord). Clearly, he was sent to preach the gospel, and in that he was translated out of the eunuch's sight, he definitely experienced the supernatural moving of the Holy Spirit in his life, Acts 8:39; he preached all the while that he travelled Acts 8:40, fully manifesting (outworking) the calling of an apostle. On what basis is he not 'an apostle'?

One last thought is, that whether they received the gift of tongues when they were baptised in the Spirit - or as a subsequent gifting - the Corinthian church contained many who spoke in tongues. It is to the Corinthians that Paul writes: '... do all speak in tongues?..' He knows that all don't. But also to the Corinthians he writes:

1 Corinthians 1:4 I give thanks to my God always concerning you for the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every thing ye were enriched in him, in all discourse and all knowledge, 6 according as the testimony of the Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that ye are not behind in any gift, waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who also shall confirm you unto the end--unblamable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ; 9 faithful is God, through whom ye were called to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 And I call upon you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the same thing ye may all say, and there may not be divisions among you, and ye may be perfected in the same mind, and in the same judgment ...'

This reads that Paul is in no way suggesting that those who do not have the gift of tongues are less in fellowship with Christ and with one another through the Holy Spirit.



Hi Alan,

Please re-look at John 21:15 - 17. Peter does not mention 'agape' once, although it is in the first two of Jesus' three questions. The only 'love' verb which Peter uses is philo, which Jesus Himself also uses in His third question. If your idea that Peter claims to have agape is your only 'evidence' for believing Peter was born again before Pentecost, it is spurious. You are misinformed about the content of Peter's answers to Christ.

Who said the disciples needed to hear an interpretation in Acts 2??.

All I have done is point out the evidence which IS in scripture: that the disciples were told by the hearers of the tongues what had been spoken to them in their own languages. This was so well known, that years later, Luke records this detail. It is not my opinion that the Lord wanted the disciples to know the interpretation of the tongues; it is the record of scripture. That should not be a problem to you, when it is a preceding demonstration of what Paul later taught through his epistle to the Corinthians, and also to the Ephesians.

Everything Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 about how tongues, interpretation and prophecy should be accommodated when the saints are gathered, is with a view to the edification and equipping of the saints. Ephesians 4:12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

There is no biblical (or earthly or heavenly) reason why the tongue-giver - who obviously a member of the body of Christ, the Church - should be excluded from understanding the tongue. Church members, whether lowly or apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists, all need to know what God is speaking through the members of the body to His people in the local assembly. It would be easy to argue that if anyone should know 'hear' the interpretation, the elders should, since the guidance of the local assembly has been committed to them by the Holy Ghost; Acts 20:28.

In Romans 12, Tyndale's original interpretation of the early verses about the operation of the gifts, particularly makes clear that the prophet is to listen to the prophecy, too; the teacher is to obey the teaching he is bringing by the Spirit (and so on). Those with speaking gifts are not to lord it over other members of the body, but rather, in the same humility as those receiving their ministry, they to be admonished by that ministry also, themselves.

(Btw, when you put a space after the colon (: ) in Bible references, the RefTagger software cannot show the reference.)

 

[Rex]

Hello Dragonfly
That was a C/P I provided the link
I posted it for the easy references showing that tongues are not manifest in every instance in Acts.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Rex,

(I've edited my reply to you as I submitted it accidentally incomplete.)

That is another great post! First, here are the points I particularly appreciated:


But, there are some inconsistencies with scripture. I'm not sure if those are typos or details missed when paraphrasing the text. For instance, in Acts 19, no 'unbelieving Jews' spoke in tongues. Or, am I misunderstanding this particular statement? 'In Acts 19 the tongues that the unbelieving Jews spoke in that were only water baptized was proof to them that Jesus died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit had come.'

A separate comment from me about that event: before Paul laid his hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost, he had baptised them in water again in the name of Jesus. Imho this is one of the passages which supports the importance of baptism for salvation, since Peter also mentions water baptism in Acts 2 to the Jews gathered from all over the world, who had never had an opportunity to respond to John Baptist's ministry. Thus, rather than making the thief on the cross the reason for demoting water baptism, surely he is the exception?

Also, I would like to challenge this statement about Philip:


My reasons for believing Philip was an apostle are that he is just as present as others of the eleven disciples (some of whom are not mentioned in the NT at all), all the way through the gospels, every time they were sent out, (or commissioned), including after Christ's resurrection in John 20:21 (when all the disciples' commissions were renewed by our risen Lord). Clearly, he was sent to preach the gospel, and in that he was translated out of the eunuch's sight, he definitely experienced the supernatural moving of the Holy Spirit in his life, Acts 8:39; he preached all the while that he travelled Acts 8:40, fully manifesting (outworking) the calling of an apostle. On what basis is he not 'an apostle'?

One last thought is, that whether they received the gift of tongues when they were baptised in the Spirit - or as a subsequent gifting - the Corinthian church contained many who spoke in tongues. It is to the Corinthians that Paul writes: '... do all speak in tongues?..' He knows that all don't. But also to the Corinthians he writes:

1 Corinthians 1:4 I give thanks to my God always concerning you for the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every thing ye were enriched in him, in all discourse and all knowledge, 6 according as the testimony of the Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that ye are not behind in any gift, waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who also shall confirm you unto the end--unblamable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ; 9 faithful is God, through whom ye were called to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 And I call upon you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the same thing ye may all say, and there may not be divisions among you, and ye may be perfected in the same mind, and in the same judgment ...'

This reads that Paul is in no way suggesting that those who do not have the gift of tongues are less in fellowship with Christ and with one another through the Holy Spirit.



Hi Alan,

Please re-look at John 21:15 - 17. Peter does not mention 'agape' once, although it is in the first two of Jesus' three questions. The only 'love' verb which Peter uses is philo, which Jesus Himself also uses in His third question. If your idea that Peter claims to have agape is your only 'evidence' for believing Peter was born again before Pentecost, it is spurious. You are misinformed about the content of Peter's answers to Christ.


All I have done is point out the evidence which IS in scripture: that the disciples were told by the hearers of the tongues what had been spoken to them in their own languages. This was so well known, that years later, Luke records this detail. It is not my opinion that the Lord wanted the disciples to know the interpretation of the tongues; it is the record of scripture. That should not be a problem to you, when it is a preceding demonstration of what Paul later taught through his epistle to the Corinthians, and also to the Ephesians.

Everything Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 about how tongues, interpretation and prophecy should be accommodated when the saints are gathered, is with a view to the edification and equipping of the saints. Ephesians 4:12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

There is no biblical (or earthly or heavenly) reason why the tongue-giver - who obviously a member of the body of Christ, the Church - should be excluded from understanding the tongue. Church members, whether lowly or apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists, all need to know what God is speaking through the members of the body to His people in the local assembly. It would be easy to argue that if anyone should know 'hear' the interpretation, the elders should, since the guidance of the local assembly has been committed to them by the Holy Ghost; Acts 20:28.

In Romans 12, Tyndale's original interpretation of the early verses about the operation of the gifts, particularly makes clear that the prophet is to listen to the prophecy, too; the teacher is to obey the teaching he is bringing by the Spirit (and so on). Those with speaking gifts are not to lord it over other members of the body, but rather, in the same humility as those receiving their ministry, they to be admonished by that ministry also, themselves.

(Btw, when you put a space after the colon (: ) in Bible references, the RefTagger software cannot show the reference.)

[1]If you look at the Greek words for "Love" in Jn 21: 15--17, You will see that one of them is "Agape", The love of God, And you cannot have the agape love of God unles you are born again.

[2]There is a difference between telling people that they were speaking in your languages, And interpreting the tongues.

[3]The only tongue that is used in a gathering, Is the tongue that needs an interpretation, The other seven manifestations of tongues can be done privately, accept the tongues that are a foreign language, And they are to inform a foreigner something.

[4]The only tongues that are meant to understand, Are those that are for interpretation, And those that are a foreign language.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rex,

Thanks. Point noted. :)



Hi Alan,

I think we've adequately covered the gift of interpretation. I agree with your point at [2]. Thanks for receiving my comments about it.

With reference to your point [1], Jesus asked Peter twice 'Do you agape me?...' and both times, Peter answered, 'Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I philo thee'. The third time, Jesus asks 'Peter, do you philo me?' Again Peter answered using philo rather than agape. You can see this very clearly in the Greek of the online interlinear translation linked below.

It does not copy and paste in interlinear format, so please look it up, at http://studybible.info/interlinear/john%2021. Thanks.

I do understand it can be a sad moment when we realise scripture neither states nor means what we thought it did, but it can only be good for the whole Church, to have us, its members, understanding God's word better. I have had to give up a few cherished impressions over the years, and I'm grateful, always, to receive a clearer understanding.



Blessings. :)

 

[Alanforchrist]

Hi Rex,

Thanks. Point noted. :)



Hi Alan,

I think we've adequately covered the gift of interpretation. I agree with your point at [2]. Thanks for receiving my comments about it.

With reference to your point [1], Jesus asked Peter twice 'Do you agape me?...' and both times, Peter answered, 'Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I philo thee'. The third time, Jesus asks 'Peter, do you philo me?' Again Peter answered using philo rather than agape. You can see this very clearly in the Greek of the online interlinear translation linked below.

It does not copy and paste in interlinear format, so please look it up, at http://studybible.info/interlinear/john%2021. Thanks.

I do understand it can be a sad moment when we realise scripture neither states nor means what we thought it did, but it can only be good for the whole Church, to have us, its members, understanding God's word better. I have had to give up a few cherished impressions over the years, and I'm grateful, always, to receive a clearer understanding.



Blessings. :)

I know what the Greek says, And I know what the Bible teaches.
Twice Jesus asked Peter, Do you love, "Agapao" Me,
Meaning Peter had the Agape love of God, Otherwise why would Jesus ask him??...Or do you think Jesus was playing games?.

If Peter wasn't born again in Jn 21: 22, and Jn 21: 15--17, Why would Jesus ask him if he loved Him wether agape love of God?.
Jesus would have know Peter couldn't love with Agape if he wasn't born again, But he was born again in Jn 20: 22, And Jesus knew it, Thats why He asked Peter, Do you love me with Agape.