I'm Not Saved Again
learner
Christian. I responded, "Yes."
I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
person's beliefs reflect it.
Learner
Mike Barefield
news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
Dennis, this is yet another reason why the body of Christ is divided. False
doctrine separates the body of Christ, destroying fellowship and reducing
the church's effectiveness in winning the world to Christ. How will the
world be brought in, if we cannot accept and love each other? One day in
heaven, there will be those that we will all have to face that are on their
way to hell because the church did not love one another and accept one
another.
Mike
John Fraser
"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
I was just thinking what their response would be to the question of
whether the 3,000 souls saved using the Acts 2:38 salvation formula spoke in
other languages. Obviously an assumption has to be made for no record
exists that any converts did. Strange that no assumption is made that
you're a Christian even though your salvation parallels that of Acts 2:38
except for selling everything you presently own. I'd be inclined to think
that it's a paradox. Still, they only have your word unless they're
planning a test. That isn't an invitation for white lies.
I suppose another line of thought is that the speaking in an unknown
language is an immediate indication whereas life changing observations
require time. Somebody doing a 15 second witness isn't willing to expend
enough time to find out. If both of you speak in another language, would
that person be able to understand you or you understand them?
Cheers,
John
Mark Bassett
"John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CQx_9.407$%W2.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Good afternoon Learner;
>
> "learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
> > It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
> > Christian. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
> > evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
> > the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
> > the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
> >
> > That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
> > hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
> >
> > UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
> > person's beliefs reflect it.
> >
> > Learner
>
> I was just thinking what their response would be to the question of
> whether the 3,000 souls saved using the Acts 2:38 salvation formula spoke
in
> other languages. Obviously an assumption has to be made for no record
> exists that any converts did. Strange that no assumption is made that
> you're a Christian even though your salvation parallels that of Acts 2:38
> except for selling everything you presently own. I'd be inclined to think
> that it's a paradox. Still, they only have your word unless they're
> planning a test. That isn't an invitation for white lies.
For the first time, in March of 1992 in El Salvador, and then a score of
times since then, we have seen occasions where over three thosuand people
received the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues, all at once. It is not
difficult, or hard to imagine. Indeed, it is very powerful, and the
recipients know very well what is taking place. In fact the wave of the
Spirit is so strong that many who simply came without committment, are moved
upon, and within that span of time, themselves are filled with the Holy
Ghost.
The people of your churches need to humble themselves, and desire to be
filled with the Spirit more than anything, it it will happen as people seek
the Lord. Otherwise, this great time of outpouring and harvest will pass
them by in their pride and self-satisfaction.
Acts 2:38 lays down the pattern for the spiritual transfromation that occurs
with the promised new birth. It is not a study of religion, nor is it a
matter of theology. It is simply a fact, and is consistent with the
scripture. No one who has experienced this, and has seen the power of God
moving in this way will step away from understanding the phenomenon of
Pentecost.
The matter of social economy is not the same as the spiritual phenoenon of
the new birth, it was the mutual response of the human heart to the
situation, and the situation was very different. Understand that the Jews
were in the posession of land that was in their families, irrevokably for
1500 years, you get a little different picture.
Their entire sustenance was tied to the land. This was ISrael's promise. Yet
the gospel came and moved them outside of the dimension of a fleshly
covenant. The earth is the LORDS and the fulness thereof. You need to
understand that, by declaring Jesus Christ as Lord of all (Jehovah) they
were effectrively inviting people to boycott them and eliminate them from
the economy. Just the same way that the Jew would not do business with the
Canaanite, or Roman in going about to maintain the life and society that
they felt was God's unique prescription for them, likewise it was inevitable
that the Christian would be immediately cut out of the loop. The Christian's
sale of their land was two-fold in purpose.
First, it was a practical answer to how to survive. They were simply setting
up a temporary mutual economy out of need. This was brand new. They were
alone in Israel, and hated. They DID have a basis for the idea of social
welfare, caring for those who had need, etc etc, and this would be made more
elaborate later, as with the appoinement of deacons, for example in Acts 7.
The second thing that this did was to declare that the Chrisitan had moved
beyond the realm of staying associated with the land grant, and the nation
of Israel. It would be a while before the church realized that the breaking
of these barriers worked mutually, bringing Gentiles to salvation, but
clearly they were no longer restricted by the history of Israel, now that
the promise had come in fiullness. Soon (Acts 10) they would be seeing the
Roman soldiers filled with the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues just as
they had been (testimony again in Acts 11)
> I suppose another line of thought is that the speaking in an unknown
> language is an immediate indication whereas life changing observations
> require time. Somebody doing a 15 second witness isn't willing to expend
> enough time to find out. If both of you speak in another language, would
> that person be able to understand you or you understand them?
The idea that speaking in other tongues is exclusively for witnessing is
dashed immedately in Acts 2. The people assembled there said "What meaneth
this?" (i.e. "what is the meaning of this?" - a demand for an explanation
of the phenomenon). Simply hearing " the works of God in their colloquial
tongues was not enough to communicate the significance of the brief message
that people heard. For the explanation starting in 2:14, Peter spoke to the
"men of Judea" (i.e. the real Jews, who still claimed this heritage and not
just the religious tourists, in their base tongue, Hebrew).
It is because the tongue is the most unruly member, which no man can tame,
that God chose to use the tongue as the sign of people receiving the baptism
of the Spirit. When a complete spiritual surrender takes place, the Spirit
controls the tongue. This is very wonderful, not only for signatory
purposes, but also in "speaking mysteries unto God", wherein the heart and
God are in unhindered communication, not interupted by the limitations of
human intellect.
The reason for doubters in the present day is very simple. There is a 2,000
year history of every imaginable profession of dogma, and religion, all
"somewhat" Christian. Man kind CAN himself produce religion and works of
devotion,. However, man CANNOT transform himself, and cannot baptize himself
in the Spirit.
In this very last day, through the power of Pentecost, God is pouring out
His spirit on all flesh. Its operation and activity is no different than it
was in the beginning. Critics and skeptics do not receive it without
repentance. Just as Peter explained that the gentiles received it the same
way that the disciples had in the beginning in the upper room, so the plumb
line and measure of God has not changed.
Are you prepared for or seeking your own time of refreshing in the Spirit of
God? I pray you put away religious prejudice and allow the Lord to do the
work that he wants to do, in your life.
> Cheers,
> John
>
Huldah
> It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
> Christian. I responded, "Yes."
>
> I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
>
> I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
> evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
> the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
> the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
>
> That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
> hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
According to the Bible, everyone making the Christian confession is
speaking by the Holy Spirit: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that
no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no
man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1
Corinthians 12:3).
> UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
> person's beliefs reflect it.
---
Huldah
For the Bible truth about 'Oneness' Pentecostalism, see:
http://www.thriceholy.org
Mike Bugal
news:b1drgc$j5l$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
> > It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
> > Christian. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
> > evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
> > the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
> > the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
> >
> > That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
> > hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
> >
> > UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
> > person's beliefs reflect it.
> >
> > Learner
> >
>
> Dennis, this is yet another reason why the body of Christ is divided.
False
> doctrine separates the body of Christ, destroying fellowship and reducing
> the church's effectiveness in winning the world to Christ.
Are you saying that you *don't* believe the "Initial Evidence" teaching
anymore, Mike... thereby jeoparizing your standing as a
Charismatic/Pentecostal? Or are you saying that it is only "false doctrine"
when taught by the Oneness Pentecostals? If the former then welcome aboard.
If the latter then doesn't that seem just a little hypocritical of you?
His and Yours,
Mike Bugal
Heartland Chapel Ministries
http://www.heartlandchapel.org/
learner
You posted:
they claim to be "Baptized in the Holy Ghost as evidenced by. . ." is
easily faked. Look at Larry Flint, the pornographer who publishes
Penthouse magazine. . .President Carter's mother made national
headlines when she "led him to the Lord," and he "was baptized in the
Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues." Of course, there has
been no FRUIT of the Spirit in his life. He didn't stop publishing
pornography. He laughed later and said he did it "on a whim." HE
FAKED IT, and the "evidence" was not real evidence of ANYTHING.
Learner
Mike Barefield
news:v3ls19a...@corp.supernews.com...
I do not hold and never have held that one must speak in tongues to be
saved. That was my point in responding to Learner's post. Those that make
tongues a requirement of salvation divide the body of Christ. My stance on
this subject aligns very closely with the Assembly of God. For those that
care to read a good article, I will provide a links.
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm#7
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_02_savedwithout.cfm
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_09_filledwotongues.cfm
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4185_spirit-filled_life.cfm
learner
You posted:
Pentecostals have been CLAIMING to speak in tongues since 1900, but
when you examine what really happens, they just repeat meaningless
phonemes and phonograms over and over, and they DON'T really speak in
tongues; they merely babble incoherently THINKING it is tongues.
And if thousands of folks do that, it is still meaningless babblings.
But the Bible NEVER SAYS you aren't a Christian if you haven't spoken
in tongues.
But it DOES say of Christians,
1 Corinthians 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these
things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the
members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is
Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews
or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of
one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
EVERY Christian is baptized in the Holy Spirit, but NOT ALL Christians
speak in tongues, Mark.
Therefore many Christians (myself, the 3,000, Paul, the Jailer, and
the Eunuch included) were baptized in the Holy Ghost WITHOUT tongues.
And you cannot find ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE to refute it!
>
>The people of your churches need to humble themselves, and desire to be
>filled with the Spirit more than anything, it it will happen as people seek
>the Lord. Otherwise, this great time of outpouring and harvest will pass
>them by in their pride and self-satisfaction.
IF a person is a Christian, he doesn't need to desire to receive the
Holy Spirit; HE HAS THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN HIM; IN THE TEMPLE OF HIS
BODY.
And He will FILL US as He sees fit and as we need Him to do so.
>
>Acts 2:38 lays down the pattern for the spiritual transfromation that occurs
>with the promised new birth. It is not a study of religion, nor is it a
>matter of theology. It is simply a fact, and is consistent with the
>scripture.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said
to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Peter said to them, "Repent,
*** And you cannot do that if you don't have faith in Jesus. How can
you be sorry for your sins if you don't believe you have sinned? And
if you DO have faith in Jesus, you are saved. He was obviously
therefore speaking to those who had already believed and were saved.
and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins;
*** The Greek word, "eis" which is translated "for" here is translated
elsewhere in the Bible many times as "because of." We are baptized
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN OF OUR SINS. Just a point.
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Not "the gift of the Holy Ghost AS EVIDENCED BY ANYTHING."
And we DO _ALL_OF_US_ receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost when we
receive Jesus Christ. But we DON'T all speak in tongues, just as Paul
said.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are
far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
The promise of what? Of our SALVATION.
The forgiveness of our sins!
A personal relationship with GOD.
NOT the promise that we would speak in tongues, OR that we would
babble incoherently and call it tongues either.
40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on
exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from
this perverse generation!"
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that
day there were added about three thousand souls.
But not one word about even one of them speaking in tongues at all.
>No one who has experienced this, and has seen the power of God
>moving in this way will step away from understanding the phenomenon of
>Pentecost.
The phenomenon is that God CHANGES LIVES. God GIVES THE FRUIT OF THE
SPIRIT.
And by our FRUIT you will know us; NOT BY BABBLING OR TONGUES.
>
>The matter of social economy is not the same as the spiritual phenoenon of
>the new birth, it was the mutual response of the human heart to the
>situation, and the situation was very different. Understand that the Jews
>were in the posession of land that was in their families, irrevokably for
>1500 years, you get a little different picture.
?????? What does the posession of the land have to do with the Holy
Spirit coming into the hearts of Christians?
>
>Their entire sustenance was tied to the land. This was ISrael's promise. Yet
>the gospel came and moved them outside of the dimension of a fleshly
>covenant. The earth is the LORDS and the fulness thereof. You need to
>understand that, by declaring Jesus Christ as Lord of all (Jehovah) they
>were effectrively inviting people to boycott them and eliminate them from
>the economy.
It is true that when a Jewish Christian was baptized, he IDENTIFIED
with Jesus and was indeed cut off from the Jewish people (shunned),
and considered a heretic.
WHAT people? Jews, of course! From every nation!
And was it "a sign?" ABSOLUTELY.
A sign for unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:19-22)
Not a mystical prayer language.
Not incoherent babbling either, Mark.
>Simply hearing " the works of God in their colloquial
>tongues was not enough to communicate the significance of the brief message
>that people heard. For the explanation starting in 2:14, Peter spoke to the
>"men of Judea" (i.e. the real Jews, who still claimed this heritage and not
>just the religious tourists, in their base tongue, Hebrew).
Actually if I remember right, the street language was Koine Greek.
>
>It is because the tongue is the most unruly member, which no man can tame,
>that God chose to use the tongue as the sign of people receiving the baptism
>of the Spirit.
And because it is so easily faked, God DIDN'T choose to use the tongue
as "the sign" of people receiving the baptism of the Spirit.
The Bible NEVER SAYS He did that. UPC folks made that one up.
>When a complete spiritual surrender takes place, the Spirit
>controls the tongue.
Nice UPC theory, but the Bible NEVER SAYS ANY SUCH THING.
>This is very wonderful, not only for signatory
>purposes, but also in "speaking mysteries unto God", wherein the heart and
>God are in unhindered communication, not interupted by the limitations of
>human intellect.
The only time people speak in tongues "mysteries unto God" are when
nobody else hears them, and whatever they speak, in English or any
other tongues, is a "mystery," or "thing not understood because it is
not heard," as the passage reads in the Greek.
>
>The reason for doubters in the present day is very simple. There is a 2,000
>year history of every imaginable profession of dogma, and religion, all
>"somewhat" Christian. Man kind CAN himself produce religion and works of
>devotion,.
The UPC is a good example of that.
>However, man CANNOT transform himself, and cannot baptize himself
>in the Spirit.
No, and man CANNOT transform himself and bear the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT.
Only God can do that.
But man CAN EASILY "fake it" and "speak in tongues" in the pentecostal
religion's manner and pretend to be baptized in the Spirit, fooling
everyone except himself.
And WHO is the "evidence" supposed to be for?
>
>In this very last day, through the power of Pentecost, God is pouring out
>His spirit on all flesh.
If you are calling tongues, "the power of Pentecost" you are nuts,
Mark!
God is working in peoples lives through HIS WORD, and through HIS
SPIRIT, changing people, bringing people to Him, saving more people
every day! And TONGUES IS NOT ANY PART OF THAT IN MOST CASES.
Perhaps in a small few, but not usually.
If you think your own little realm is all of Christianity and that
non-babblers are not Christian, you are denying the greatest number of
God's children!
Learner
Mark Bassett
"Huldah" <Bigfoot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E3ACC7A...@yahoo.com...
> learner wrote:
>
> > It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
> > Christian. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
> >
> > I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
> > evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
> > the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
> > the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
> >
> > That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
> > hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
>
>
> According to the Bible, everyone making the Christian confession is
> speaking by the Holy Spirit: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that
> no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no
> man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1
> Corinthians 12:3).
Of course, the same easy-believism advocates will later be heard to say "its
only those who 'really mean it'", pointing to the total absence of gravity
in misusing this verse as a criteria for determining the presence of the
Holy Ghost.
The fact is, this verse means exactly the opposite of what Huldah is trying
to promote. No person's statements to the effect of trying to lift Jesus
Christ is meaningful in any way, unless the motivation flows, as it did with
Peter in Matt 16, from the Spirit of God. Our natural understanding simply
does not have the capacity to identity Jesus Christ for whom he is, as some
of the religious pundits demostrate aptly, even in these newsgroups.
This is the constant problem with these opinions. A little while ago we
heard how no one could really be baptized except they were empowered by the
Holy Ghost to obey the commandment of God, but we can hear from thousands of
people who will today confess that they were baptized because of some
motivation other than the desire to obey God. Did they think so at the time?
Most likely not... most likely they mistook their desire for acceptance, or
for cooperative religious activity in a group where it is traditional to
baptize, as obeying God.
The Bible does NOT give the sign of saying "Jesus is Lord". Anyone can say
that. However, it is only meaningful, when it is motivated by the Holy
Ghost.
Huldah is gambling that no satanist could be found to mouth the words "Jesus
is Lord" - that somehow, his lips would be locked and sealed from such a
pronouncement. Most people, however, know this is silly.
Mark Bassett
To properly conclude the subject, who doubts that Flint might also have
said the words "Jesus is Lord"?
For the doctrinally challenged, let me restate that being baptized in the
Holy Ghost does not guarentee fruit. An individual must surrender and yeild
themselves to the power of the Spirit for there to be any result at all
beyond the initial, and relatively trivial evidence.
Mark Bassett
<snip>
> If you are calling tongues, "the power of Pentecost" you are nuts,
> Mark!
And we hear them routinely decry my comments as unchristian. :-)
That's some kind of fruit, Dennis laddy.
What kind exactly?
Mike Bugal
Thanks for the links, Mike, but I'm afraid that you really haven't thought
your position out very well. If you agree with the AoG that speaking in
tongues is the "initial evidence" of the presence of the Holy Spirit in your
life, but say that you *don't* believe that you must speak in tongues to be
saved are you not saying that one is saved *without* the presence of the
Holy Spirit? Can you substantiate your position from the Word of God?
learner
You posted:
Pentecost?" I was being a bit silly, I admit, but I REALLY didn't
think you believed that the power that occured on Pentecost was
tongues speaking!
The POWER at Pentecost was reflected in GOD CHANGING ABOUT 3,000
LIVES, and saving about 3,000 SOULS. Tongues, sound as of a mighty
wind, and tongues as of fire got people's attention, but the POWER was
the POWER of God in about 3,000 lives, not tongues!
You didn't REALLY believe it was tongues, did you? If you did, I
apologize for treating it so lightly!
Learner
learner
Nobody I know. I suspect that Jimmy Carter's mother (Lillian?) would
ask him to say that, and I would suspect that he did.
But he faked it anyhow.
>
>For the doctrinally challenged, let me restate that being baptized in the
>Holy Ghost does not guarentee fruit.
Jesus said that BY THEIR FRUIT you will know them.
He also said that the tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down
and cast into the fire.
>An individual must surrender and yeild
>themselves to the power of the Spirit for there to be any result at all
>beyond the initial, and relatively trivial evidence.
>
Are you trying to tell me that you can be a Christian and have no sign
of Jesus in your life at all; no fruit?
I think that flies in the face of LOTS of scripture, including James.
Learner
Bro. William M. Price
True, one of the evidence of the baptism is a changed life. However, the
initial evidence is the speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
Look at the day of Pentecost. When the outpouring came, they...spoke with
tongues. 1Corinthians lists speaking in tongues as a gift of the Spirit.
Paul himself said that he spoke more in tongues than us all.
Learner, I recommend you find a real church, and pray through. But, first,
if you have not repented of your sins, and been baptized in the name of
Jesus Messiah (Christ) for the remission of your sins, do that. Until then,
your sins are not forgiven.
That person from the UPC had it right. You need the fulness of the truth.
--
In Jesus Name,
Bro. William M. Price
Apostolic Messianic Ministries of Jesus Messiah
http://www.apostolicmessianic.com
"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
John Fraser
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Ipz_9.475492$FT6.96...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
I never stated that speaking in biblical tongues is decadent nor do I
have any reason to. There is is no record of any of the 3,000 speaking in
other tongues. There is a record of them selling much of what they had.
There is no mention of this in your example. Am I to assume they did
likewise? You're arguing with the wrong person if you honestly believe that
I consider the speaking in Spirit-led languages (prayer or conversation) to
be passe, and particularly in large groups.
While I'm not trying to stir up any hard feelings, the scenario with
Learner contrasts with Steve Davis whom you considered a Christian brother
even though he didn't speak in other tongues nor was he baptized by the Holy
Spirit (he may now). Yet, Learner doesn't qualify with the other OP? I
merely pointed out that a paradox exists.
Cheers,
John
Mike Barefield
The Holy Spirit comes into our lives at salvation. The baptism in the Holy
Spirit is a second experience. If you read the links I provided you should
have noted this is consistent with the AoG stance on the question. Note
this link to the AoG web site.
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_01_distinct.cfm
Since this is a short response from their site, I am also pasting it here
for quick reference.
This A/G Perspective reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which
have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the
Executive Presbytery.
Do Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they are saved? If so, how is
this experience different from the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Yes, when persons accept Christ, the Holy Spirit begins a great work in
their lives. The Spirit convicts them of sin, convinces them of
righteousness, and dwells within them (John 6:44; 14:17; Roman 8:9; 1
Corinthians 12:13). No one becomes a Christian without this gracious work of
the Holy Spirit.
However, there is an additional and distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit
called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Baptism is an empowering gift
from God the Father that is promised to every believer (Matthew 3:11; Luke
11:13; 24:49; Acts 2:33, 38). It helps the Christian to live a holy life and
also brings a new devotional attachment to Jesus Christ, making Him very
real and precious. The primary purpose of the Baptism is to give greater
power for witnessing (Acts 1:8). Other benefits include a greater joy in
spiritual service, and a heightened sense of one's mission to the world.
John Hennekes
> Christian. I responded, "Yes."
God is good!
> I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
Being baptized (and I assume you mean by water), is certainly not forbidden.
Acts 10:47
> I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
> evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
> the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
> the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
Galatians 5:22-24 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and
lusts. (Verses 25-26 will follow)
> That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
> hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
We are saved simply because of our belief in Jesus Christ. As long as we
believe that Jesus is the Son of God, sent to us in the flesh so that our
lives would be redeemed by His Blood shed on the cross, then we are indeed
saved.
> UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
> person's beliefs reflect it.
Because of some that are misguided, do we, therefore, dismiss the whole
church? The Apostle Paul stated that, "there are diversities of gifts, but
the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same
Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which
worketh all in all." Now, are you still so absolutely certain, and are you
indeed saying, that this particular church and all of its members are
following a different God, a different Christ, and a different Spirit; and
if so, are you later willing to give this accounting to the Lamb? Before
you answer, consider what Jesus had said in Mark 9:39-40 and Luke 9:50,
"...Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name,
that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our
part." and "...Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."
In closing (and as promised), I leave you with this:
Galatians 5:25-26 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one
another.
John Hennekes
> Learner
>
learner
You posted:
>Learner,
>
>True, one of the evidence of the baptism is a changed life. However, the
>initial evidence is the speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
Not according to the bible.
>
>Look at the day of Pentecost. When the outpouring came, they...spoke with
>tongues.
120 did, 3,000 did NOT. Not one single word is said about even one of
the 3,000 speaking in tongues
>1Corinthians lists speaking in tongues as a gift of the Spirit.
And 1 Corinthians ALSO says that not every Christian receives that
gift, but it also says that EVERY Christian IS baptized in the spirit.
>Paul himself said that he spoke more in tongues than us all.
Later in life; but at his salvation (when he received the Holy Spirit)
he did not.
>
>Learner, I recommend you find a real church, and pray through.
I worship with an EXCELLENT church and pray many times each day.
>But, first,
>if you have not repented of your sins, and been baptized in the name of
>Jesus Messiah (Christ) for the remission of your sins, do that. Until then,
>your sins are not forgiven.
I have been a Christian for almost 30 years now. I was baptized after
becoming a Christian, and I have worn the Name of my Savior for all of
that time. My sins are forgiven.
>
>That person from the UPC had it right. You need the fulness of the truth.
The Truth of Jesus Christ is ALWAYS full, and tongues does not make it
any more so.
>
>--
>In Jesus Name,
>Bro. William M. Price
In Jesus Name,
Learner
Mark Bassett
It is disingenuous to neglect the comments related to economy that I made
below.
> You're arguing with the wrong person if you honestly believe that
> I consider the speaking in Spirit-led languages (prayer or conversation)
to
> be passe, and particularly in large groups.
I am not arguing with you.
> While I'm not trying to stir up any hard feelings, the scenario with
> Learner contrasts with Steve Davis whom you considered a Christian brother
> even though he didn't speak in other tongues nor was he baptized by the
Holy
> Spirit (he may now). Yet, Learner doesn't qualify with the other OP? I
> merely pointed out that a paradox exists.
There is no paradox. There is a spiritual transformation that comes with the
baptism of the Holy Ghost. There is repeated identification of tongues being
used as a sign of the receiving of the Holy Ghost, if one uses scripture as
the basis of their judgment.
Mark Bassett
Right - so, in other words, signs and substance are two different things.
In the matter of converting human life, the sign (whatever you may suppose
it is) does not accomplish that.
A sign occurs for a moment.
As to the substance, the Holy Ghost prevails over the corrupt nature and
person to bring fruit as the person trusts God and attends to a relationship
with God in Jesus Christ.
When you pull the nozzle lever on a gas pump, there is a little jump as the
gas begins to flow. The jump signifies the beginning of the flow, but we do
not suppose it has stopped because the jump is not noticable thereafter.
Check the height of the car as you pump 20 gallons of gas in... it creeps a
little lower. Thats evidence that the flow is continuing. It is more subtle.
There is a difference between the sign and the substance.
> >For the doctrinally challenged, let me restate that being baptized in the
> >Holy Ghost does not guarentee fruit.
>
> Jesus said that BY THEIR FRUIT you will know them.
Dennis, don't miss the forest for the trees. I don't fellowship everyone who
speaks in tongues, for the precise reason you state.
> He also said that the tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down
> and cast into the fire.
>
> >An individual must surrender and yeild
> >themselves to the power of the Spirit for there to be any result at all
> >beyond the initial, and relatively trivial evidence.
> >
> Are you trying to tell me that you can be a Christian and have no sign
> of Jesus in your life at all; no fruit?
Nope. I am telling you that a Christian stays "abides" in Jesus Christ and
fruit deveops.
> I think that flies in the face of LOTS of scripture, including James.
You are absolutely right, but again, we did not say what you are arguing
against.
Mark Bassett
> Hello "Mark Bassett" <bas...@optonline.net>,
> You posted:
> >"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e3af113...@news.velocitus.net...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> If you are calling tongues, "the power of Pentecost" you are nuts,
> >> Mark!
> >
> >And we hear them routinely decry my comments as unchristian. :-)
> >
> >That's some kind of fruit, Dennis laddy.
> >
> >What kind exactly?
> >
> Joyful laughing! Do you REALLY think that tongues are "the power of
> Pentecost?" I was being a bit silly, I admit, but I REALLY didn't
> think you believed that the power that occured on Pentecost was
> tongues speaking!
You are letting your imagination move too fast.
Tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The power of
Pentecost is the extraordinary new birth experience promised and desire for
centuries, exactly as it occured on the day of Pentecost.
People receive remission of sins, and infusion of power for new life, with
the pheomenon that occured and continues to occur in the name of Jesus.
> The POWER at Pentecost was reflected in GOD CHANGING ABOUT 3,000
> LIVES, and saving about 3,000 SOULS. Tongues, sound as of a mighty
> wind, and tongues as of fire got people's attention, but the POWER was
> the POWER of God in about 3,000 lives, not tongues!
It is your belief that the 3,000 did not receive the same sign. However, men
and women DID receive that sign thereafter. For example, in the gentiles
home in Acts 10, and in Ephesus, in acts 19. I believe that the experience
was and is consistent.
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
> You didn't REALLY believe it was tongues, did you? If you did, I
> apologize for treating it so lightly!
You make too much out of your assumptions Dennis. The power of Pentecost is
Jesus Christ coming to dwell in the heart and giving birth to a uniform
church who holds HIM to be the Living God, with signs following.
learner
You posted:
>
>"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
>news:3e3b4b72...@news.velocitus.net...
>> Hello "Mark Bassett" <bas...@optonline.net>,
>> You posted:
>> >"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3e3af113...@news.velocitus.net...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> If you are calling tongues, "the power of Pentecost" you are nuts,
>> >> Mark!
>> >
>> >And we hear them routinely decry my comments as unchristian. :-)
>> >
>> >That's some kind of fruit, Dennis laddy.
>> >
>> >What kind exactly?
>> >
>> Joyful laughing! Do you REALLY think that tongues are "the power of
>> Pentecost?" I was being a bit silly, I admit, but I REALLY didn't
>> think you believed that the power that occured on Pentecost was
>> tongues speaking!
>
>You are letting your imagination move too fast.
>
>Tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The Bible NEVER calls it that. There are 3 instances where they occur
together.
Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
evidence.
How about the mighty sound as of a mighty wind? Is THAT "the sign of
the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
If not, why not. Why just pick one. Why not include the WHOLE THING?
Or is that just not convenient? You cannot produce anything that
appears to be like those things to the unstudied?
>The power of
>Pentecost is the extraordinary new birth experience promised and desire for
>centuries, exactly as it occured on the day of Pentecost.
You still haven't said what "the power of Pentecost" is. If you are
claiming it is tongues, you are still off base! Tongues was just a
VERY small part of it. 3,000 CHANGED LIVES were MUCH MORE
SIGNIFICANT!
>
>People receive remission of sins, and infusion of power for new life, with
>the pheomenon that occured and continues to occur in the name of Jesus.
Not from speaking in tongues. Tongues has nothing to do with the
remission of sins. Not anywhere in the Bible.
>
>> The POWER at Pentecost was reflected in GOD CHANGING ABOUT 3,000
>> LIVES, and saving about 3,000 SOULS. Tongues, sound as of a mighty
>> wind, and tongues as of fire got people's attention, but the POWER was
>> the POWER of God in about 3,000 lives, not tongues!
>
>It is your belief that the 3,000 did not receive the same sign.
There is NO SCRIPTURAL REASON TO BELIEVE that they did. It is not
there.
>However, men
>and women DID receive that sign thereafter. For example, in the gentiles
>home in Acts 10, and in Ephesus, in acts 19. I believe that the experience
>was and is consistent.
These two instances, as with Acts 2 were SPECIAL EVENTS. Each was an
event that would never be repeated. The Holy Spirit came into the
church for the first time in Acts 2. Cornelius was the first Gentile
in the church. And those folks who were baptized by John the Baptist
before Jesus was crucified will not be found to be around today.
But NOT ONE WORD about the 3,000 speaking in tongues when they
received the Holy Ghost.
NOT ONE WORD when Paul became a Christian, the Jailer became a
Christian, or the Eunuch either.
So when the Bible NEVER SAYS that any of these folks spoke in tongues
when they received the Holy Ghost, why should I pretend they did?
>
>Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
>they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
And as a group we do. There are obviously a few people in the mission
field who find themselves speaking in languages they don't know ahead
of time to unbelievers about Jesus.
THAT is tongues.
But babbling incoherently in church on Sunday, or believing that it is
"prayer" to babble incoherently when you are alone? Face it; NOTHING
LIKE THAT IS IN THE BIBLE, or is from God.
>
>Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
>with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
>
>> You didn't REALLY believe it was tongues, did you? If you did, I
>> apologize for treating it so lightly!
>
>You make too much out of your assumptions Dennis. The power of Pentecost is
>Jesus Christ coming to dwell in the heart and giving birth to a uniform
>church who holds HIM to be the Living God, with signs following.
>
Try again. The Power of Pentecost is Jesus Christ coming into the
heart, PERIOD. Those of us who have Him there, when we meet ARE
church.
Learner
Stephen
Learner,
I don't think anyone here has denied any experiences or touches from
God you have received, but there is a fine line between feeling the
movement of the Spirit and actually being baptized with the Spirit.
God is good to those who lift His name up for His purpose, regardless
if you are oneness or trinity. But if you keep using "nowhere does it
say any of the 3,000 spoke in tongues", then you are only fooling
yourself. Jesus said believers will speak with new tongues. The Bible
doesn't always say every detail for every event, does it? It doesn't
always say people wore clothes or smiled or whatever, but it's implied
as someone's reading comprehension would do for the reader.
A move of the Spirit inspired me to live my life better, and I did for
awhile, but I was NOT baptized with the Spirit yet. When it did happen
-- WOAH. What a difference! My life was anew! It's a promise for you.
Don't let these petty arguments stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost
baptism. It's promised to you.
:-)
- Stephen
Pastor Steve Winter
>It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
>Christian. I responded, "Yes."
Well you lied then because you are a false-christian scum out
here serving Satan as a false-christian minister.
Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
John W
wrote:
>It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
>Christian. I responded, "Yes."
>
>I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
>
>I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
>evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
>the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
>the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
>
>That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
>hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
>
>UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
>person's beliefs reflect it.
>
>Learner
Ditto.
In Christ,
John Weatherly
---------------------
"You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
Dr. Charlie Shedd
----------------------------
"Don't run to finish the race; run to win."
the Apostle Paul
learner
You posted:
>
>"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
>news:3e3a6e9...@news.velocitus.net...
>> It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
>> Christian. I responded, "Yes."
>
>God is good!
>
>> I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
>
>Being baptized (and I assume you mean by water), is certainly not forbidden.
>Acts 10:47
Even more than that, it is commanded that we do it. Matthew 28:19.
>
>> I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
>> evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
>> the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
>> the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
>
>Galatians 5:22-24 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
>longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
>Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
>And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and
>lusts. (Verses 25-26 will follow)
Yep. And we know a tree by its fruit, don't we?
>
>> That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
>> hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
>
>We are saved simply because of our belief in Jesus Christ. As long as we
>believe that Jesus is the Son of God, sent to us in the flesh so that our
>lives would be redeemed by His Blood shed on the cross, then we are indeed
>saved.
>
>> UPC theology is not Christian. It does not fit the Bible if this
>> person's beliefs reflect it.
>
>Because of some that are misguided, do we, therefore, dismiss the whole
>church?
It depends. If it is the "official doctrine" of the organization that
nobody who believes differently than they do is saved and that all who
believe as the church Jesus established does will go to Hell, yes.
>The Apostle Paul stated that, "there are diversities of gifts, but
>the same Spirit.
Ahh, but he also said there would be "false Christs," and "false
prophets." We are not to follow them, the "gifts" the offer are not
from God.
No John, not all who call themselves Christian are really Christians,
and when a small cult calls itself Christian and condemns all the rest
of Christianity to Hell for not speaking in tongues (a requirement
NEVER MADE by God in the Bible), then we know that cult is not of God.
Learner
Huldah
>>>It happened again. I was asked by a UPC person today if I was a
>>>Christian. I responded, "Yes."
>>>
>>>I was asked if I had been baptized. I responded, "Yes."
>>>
>>>I was asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost "as
>>>evidenced by speaking in tongues." I responded no, but I had received
>>>the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the evidence was a changed life and
>>>the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
>>>
>>>That wasn't good enough. This person said I wasn't saved because I
>>>hadn't spoken in tongues. No other basis.
>>>
>>
>>According to the Bible, everyone making the Christian confession is
>>speaking by the Holy Spirit: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that
>>no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no
>>man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1
>>Corinthians 12:3).
>
> Of course, the same easy-believism advocates will later be heard to say "its
> only those who 'really mean it'", pointing to the total absence of gravity
> in misusing this verse as a criteria for determining the presence of the
> Holy Ghost.
Those who believe the gospel will, as ever, demonstrate the errors of
your cult by quoting scripture: "For *with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness*; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
" (Romans 10:10). Needless to say, saving faith is true faith, from the
heart.
> The fact is, this verse means exactly the opposite of what Huldah is trying
> to promote. No person's statements to the effect of trying to lift Jesus
> Christ is meaningful in any way, unless the motivation flows, as it did with
> Peter in Matt 16, from the Spirit of God. Our natural understanding simply
> does not have the capacity to identity Jesus Christ for whom he is,
Yes, without grace, the depravity of the human mind is such that the
natural man is at enmity with God, even a 'hater' of God: "Backbiters,
haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents,
..." (Romans 1:30).
>
as some
> of the religious pundits demostrate aptly, even in these newsgroups.
The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin and, as Paul explains, leads us to
confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Given that that is the case, why
does your cult deny that believers have the Holy Spirit until they speak
in tongues? Paul says they already had the Spirit when they make their
confession of faith prior to baptism. As you yourself admit, it was the
Holy Spirit who led them there.
The disciples had the Holy Spirit before they spoke in tongues: "And
when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive
ye the Holy Ghost:..." (John 20:22). Is there any reason to think this
is not true in other cases?
> This is the constant problem with these opinions. A little while ago we
> heard how no one could really be baptized except they were empowered by the
> Holy Ghost to obey the commandment of God, but we can hear from thousands of
> people who will today confess that they were baptized because of some
> motivation other than the desire to obey God.
To your way of thinking, Mark, 'lying' counts as 'obeying God.' Do you
understand that the God of the Bible is not your 'god'?: "Thou art of
purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity:
wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest
thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than
he?" (Habakkuk 1:13). The liar who says 'I believe' but does not is
*not* "empowered by the Holy Ghost to obey the commandment of God," as
you claim, because the Holy Spirit does not inspire liars to lie.
>
Did they think so at the time?
> Most likely not... most likely they mistook their desire for acceptance, or
> for cooperative religious activity in a group where it is traditional to
> baptize, as obeying God.
>
> The Bible does NOT give the sign of saying "Jesus is Lord". Anyone can say
> that. However, it is only meaningful, when it is motivated by the Holy
> Ghost.
>
> Huldah is gambling that no satanist could be found to mouth the words "Jesus
> is Lord" -
Sometimes it's with a shock that you realize who you're talking to when
you're talking to Mark Bassett. You have made a 'god' in your own image,
Mark, but let's not overlook the 'Mark Bassett verse' of the Bible: "But
the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and *all liars*, shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
the second death." (Revelation 21:8). The true and living God does not
inspire lies.
>
that somehow, his lips would be locked and sealed from such a
> pronouncement. Most people, however, know this is silly.
Are you trying to mock the scripture I quoted by imputing to Paul the
intention to say that the Holy Spirit inspires liars to lie? Do you
have any idea how shocking that is to Christians aware of the holiness
of God?
---
Huldah
Join over ten thousand visitors enjoying
http://www.thriceholy.org
Huldah
<snip>
>>>Are you saying that you *don't* believe the "Initial Evidence" teaching
>>>anymore, Mike... thereby jeoparizing your standing as a
>>>Charismatic/Pentecostal? Or are you saying that it is only "false
>>>doctrine"
>>>when taught by the Oneness Pentecostals? If the former then welcome
>>>aboard.
>>
>>>If the latter then doesn't that seem just a little hypocritical of you?
>>>
>>I do not hold and never have held that one must speak in tongues to be
>>saved.
>>That was my point in responding to Learner's post. Those that make
>>tongues a requirement of salvation divide the body of Christ. My stance
>>
> on
>
>>this subject aligns very closely with the Assembly of God. For those that
>>care to read a good article, I will provide a links.
>>
>
> Thanks for the links, Mike, but I'm afraid that you really haven't thought
> your position out very well. If you agree with the AoG that speaking in
> tongues is the "initial evidence" of the presence of the Holy Spirit in your
> life, but say that you *don't* believe that you must speak in tongues to be
> saved are you not saying that one is saved *without* the presence of the
> Holy Spirit? Can you substantiate your position from the Word of God?
You are identifying the "presence" of the Holy Ghost with the 'pouring
out' of the Holy Ghost described in Acts: "And on my servants and on my
handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall
prophesy:..." (Acts 2:18). Those whose views you are misunderstanding
differentiate the two. Without this "presence," none can be saved: "But
ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of
God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his." (Romans 8:9). A furnace offers an analogy; the pilot
light is always on, but when the burner comees on with a 'whoosh,' you
notice.
> His and Yours,
>
> Mike Bugal
> Heartland Chapel Ministries
> http://www.heartlandchapel.org/
>
>
>>http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm#7
>>http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_02_savedwithout.cfm
>>http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_09_filledwotongues.cfm
>>http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4185_spirit-filled_life.cfm
Mark Bassett
1. Bible readers know that this passage is in the context of Pauls
comparison of the covenant life of Israel, which was not salvation, and New
Testament salvation, which is accessable by the open door of the gospel, to
the repentant sinner. It is not intended to be a fomula for salvation, apart
from declaring that the works of the law do not regenerate, nor is
qualification for salvation provided therein.
2. I agree that it is from the heart, but it is not "needless to say".
> > The fact is, this verse means exactly the opposite of what Huldah is
trying
> > to promote. No person's statements to the effect of trying to lift Jesus
> > Christ is meaningful in any way, unless the motivation flows, as it did
with
> > Peter in Matt 16, from the Spirit of God. Our natural understanding
simply
> > does not have the capacity to identity Jesus Christ for whom he is,
>
>
> Yes, without grace, the depravity of the human mind is such that the
> natural man is at enmity with God, even a 'hater' of God: "Backbiters,
> haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
> disobedient to parents,
> ..." (Romans 1:30).
Yet, one must ponder what then becomes a mystery of the existence of church
attenders who routinely "confess" and live in a tradition that would appear
to recognize that Jesus is the Son of God, etc etc, yet who are devoid of
the power of God. The scripture leaves no mystery there, for Paul instructs
the saint that there are those who have the form of godliness, yet lack the
power thereof, and to flee from such. (2 tim 3:5). Thus, it is insufficient
to declare the fact of the believers confession and yet let it be understood
as a formula for salvation. The Bible does not do this: Religious pundits
who seek to establish private doctrine do.
To find the true means of salvation, one unites the transformation of the
perspective and heart's focus illustrated in the conversion experience as
Paul explained in Hebrews 10, and matches it with the obedient belief of the
examples of individuals believing repenting, being baptized in Jesus' name,
and receiving the Holy Spirit.
>
> as some
> > of the religious pundits demostrate aptly, even in these newsgroups.
>
>
> The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin and, as Paul explains, leads us to
> confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Given that that is the case, why
> does your cult deny that believers have the Holy Spirit until they speak
> in tongues?
> Paul says they already had the Spirit when they make their
> confession of faith prior to baptism.
No, he does not. You use word 'had' here. This is a doctrinally fatal error,
since there is no basis for believing that an individual POSESSES or is
indwelled by the Spirit before being baptized by the Spirit in the
experience of Pentecost.
> As you yourself admit, it was the
> Holy Spirit who led them there.
Yes, I do - but having the Spirit is a different thing. The Spirit moved on
Samson. Samson did not "have" the Spirit.
> The disciples had the Holy Spirit before they spoke in tongues: "And
> when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive
> ye the Holy Ghost:..." (John 20:22). Is there any reason to think this
> is not true in other cases?
No, the disciples did not at this time receive the Holy Ghost.
When the postoffice employee instructs a person to "RECEIVE YOUR MAIL at box
#65009", he is not at that moment giving them mail.
When Paul wrote "receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to
save your souls", Paul was instructing in the means of approaching their
ongoing experience with the word of God, so as to receive benefit.
Jesus words to the disciples were no different.
In the upper room, when the day of Pentecost was fully come,accordoing to
the plan of God the Spirit of God was poured out upon all flesh, and men and
women began to receive this experience for the first time, as God had
promised, and as Jesus had reitterated (John 7, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:5-8)
> > This is the constant problem with these opinions. A little while ago we
> > heard how no one could really be baptized except they were empowered by
the
> > Holy Ghost to obey the commandment of God, but we can hear from
thousands of
> > people who will today confess that they were baptized because of some
> > motivation other than the desire to obey God.
>
>
> To your way of thinking, Mark, 'lying' counts as 'obeying God.'
No, that is not true. I am qualifying the remarks. People are baptized for
many reasons, and these are not lies. A person may believe that he should be
baptized because the church wants him to be, or many other things. His
inadequate knowledge does not ammount to a lie.
> Do you understand that the God of the Bible is not your 'god'?: "Thou art
of
> purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity:
> wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest
> thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than
> he?" (Habakkuk 1:13).
LOL! Here is more Fredericka Frustration, where, unable to support a failing
point, she returns to her spitting and snarling.
> The liar who says 'I believe' but does not is
> *not* "empowered by the Holy Ghost to obey the commandment of God," as
> you claim, because the Holy Spirit does not inspire liars to lie.
God did not want you or anyone else confused on this matter. While you think
it is an answer to simply call people liars, understand God's criteria,
which is the whole message of interest here:
The person who says they believe may indeed believe all sorts of things,
including some religious information (and is not lying when he says he
believes it - all of it may be apart from Truth). The gospel, however, is
Truth.
The person who believes the gospel will be baptized in Jesus name, and will
receive the Holy Ghost.
>
> Did they think so at the time?
> > Most likely not... most likely they mistook their desire for acceptance,
or
> > for cooperative religious activity in a group where it is traditional to
> > baptize, as obeying God.
> >
> > The Bible does NOT give the sign of saying "Jesus is Lord". Anyone can
say
> > that. However, it is only meaningful, when it is motivated by the Holy
> > Ghost.
> >
> > Huldah is gambling that no satanist could be found to mouth the words
"Jesus
> > is Lord" -
Now she goes back to the frustration mode, defaming and lying about me
again.
> Sometimes it's with a shock that you realize who you're talking to when
> you're talking to Mark Bassett. You have made a 'god' in your own image,
> Mark, but let's not overlook the 'Mark Bassett verse' of the Bible: "But
> the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
> whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and *all liars*, shall have
> their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
> the second death." (Revelation 21:8). The true and living God does not
> inspire lies.
Ferericka, grow up a little and learn to deal with the fact that you arent
the smartest cookie in every box. Now and again, things are going to
challenge you, and you are going to have to have SOME answer other than
calling people names and asserting that they are Satan and all that.
>
> >
>
> that somehow, his lips would be locked and sealed from such a
> > pronouncement. Most people, however, know this is silly.
>
>
> Are you trying to mock the scripture I quoted by imputing to Paul the
> intention to say that the Holy Spirit inspires liars to lie? Do you
> have any idea how shocking that is to Christians aware of the holiness
> of God?
I'm posing a simple statement. A person who says the words "Jesus is Lord"
is not proving that he has the Holy Ghost. Rather, the scripture writer is
convrying to us that the statement is MEANINGFUL ONLY WHEN INSPIRED OF THE
HOLY GHOST.
We also notice that you snipped the meaningful context out of your response,
including the scripture. Some may wonder why. I have stopped wondering why
you do this, because I know.
It is your CRAZY imagination that comes up with kooky interpretations like
"the Holy Ghost inspiring liars to lie".
Mark Bassett
> Hello "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>,
> You posted:
> >
> >"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e3b4b72...@news.velocitus.net...
> >> Hello "Mark Bassett" <bas...@optonline.net>,
> >> You posted:
> >> >"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3e3af113...@news.velocitus.net...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> If you are calling tongues, "the power of Pentecost" you are nuts,
> >> >> Mark!
> >> >
> >> >And we hear them routinely decry my comments as unchristian. :-)
> >> >
> >> >That's some kind of fruit, Dennis laddy.
> >> >
> >> >What kind exactly?
> >> >
> >> Joyful laughing! Do you REALLY think that tongues are "the power of
> >> Pentecost?" I was being a bit silly, I admit, but I REALLY didn't
> >> think you believed that the power that occured on Pentecost was
> >> tongues speaking!
> >
> >You are letting your imagination move too fast.
> >
> >Tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
>
> The Bible NEVER calls it that. There are 3 instances where they occur
> together.
In one very telling item, Peter and the Elders use this sign to identify
that those hearing the gospel had received the Holy Ghost. Do you suggest
that their thinking was flawed?
> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
No.
> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
> evidence.
There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
matter before.
> How about the mighty sound as of a mighty wind? Is THAT "the sign of
> the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
The sound was probably related to the 120 individuals speaking in tongues.
This is what it sounds like when this happens. If not. are you also going to
require that the direction of the sound is identical? How about the fact
that they were sitting?
How about the number of people?
> If not, why not. Why just pick one. Why not include the WHOLE THING?
> Or is that just not convenient? You cannot produce anything that
> appears to be like those things to the unstudied?
Actually, Acts 10 is an issue that you cannot and have not answered. The
Apostles themselves reasoned this way. Secondly, Acts 8 shows that there was
a distinct and specific phenomenon that occured with the people of Samaria
receiving the Holy Ghost, such that Simon wanted to purchase the power to
reproduce it. Thirdly, Paul likewise saw this occur, and was evidently
satisfied that these BELIEVERS had now received the Holy Ghost.
> >The power of
> >Pentecost is the extraordinary new birth experience promised and desire
for
> >centuries, exactly as it occured on the day of Pentecost.
>
> You still haven't said what "the power of Pentecost" is. If you are
> claiming it is tongues, you are still off base! Tongues was just a
> VERY small part of it. 3,000 CHANGED LIVES were MUCH MORE
> SIGNIFICANT!
Yes, I have said. It is the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the ensuing
transformations of a supernatural birth. Without speaking in tongues
however, no matter how much a person is excited about a reformation and
religious zeal, there is no new birth.
> >
> >People receive remission of sins, and infusion of power for new life,
with
> >the pheomenon that occured and continues to occur in the name of Jesus.
>
> Not from speaking in tongues. Tongues has nothing to do with the
> remission of sins. Not anywhere in the Bible.
Thats correct, however tongues IS a sign of receiving the Holy Ghost, and
receiving the Holy Ghost is an element of the new birth that is complimented
by remission of sins. They go together in the phenomenon of Pentecost.
> >> The POWER at Pentecost was reflected in GOD CHANGING ABOUT 3,000
> >> LIVES, and saving about 3,000 SOULS. Tongues, sound as of a mighty
> >> wind, and tongues as of fire got people's attention, but the POWER was
> >> the POWER of God in about 3,000 lives, not tongues!
> >
> >It is your belief that the 3,000 did not receive the same sign.
>
> There is NO SCRIPTURAL REASON TO BELIEVE that they did. It is not
> there.
Yes there is. The Apostles expected it, exactly as we see them expecting it
in Cornelius' house, and confirming the experience of the seekers there, by
this sign. Besides this, tongues is shown as present and eminent in
churches down the road in time, in the Epistles. Paul is speaking with
tongues., ALL of the 120 spoke in tongues. You have no reason whatsoever to
suppose that the 3,000 did not receive this same experience, and have an
impossible time explaining the pattern of their using this sign to measure
whether the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in chapter 10. When we see it
replicate again in a complete group of believers in Acts 19, long after the
question of whether gentiles can receive the Holy Ghost was settled, there
is no longer a reason to doubt.
> >However, men
> >and women DID receive that sign thereafter. For example, in the gentiles
> >home in Acts 10, and in Ephesus, in acts 19. I believe that the
experience
> >was and is consistent.
>
> These two instances, as with Acts 2 were SPECIAL EVENTS. Each was an
> event that would never be repeated. The Holy Spirit came into the
> church for the first time in Acts 2. Cornelius was the first Gentile
> in the church. And those folks who were baptized by John the Baptist
> before Jesus was crucified will not be found to be around today.
Thanks .. Now how about Acts 19. How does this fit into your neat
explain-away?
> But NOT ONE WORD about the 3,000 speaking in tongues when they
> received the Holy Ghost.
>
> NOT ONE WORD when Paul became a Christian, the Jailer became a
> Christian, or the Eunuch either.
So when DID Paul begin to speak in tongues? At the Burger King when they
held the pickle?
> So when the Bible NEVER SAYS that any of these folks spoke in tongues
> when they received the Holy Ghost, why should I pretend they did?
You shouldnt pretend. You should NOT assume they did not on the basis that
YOU yourself did not speak in tongues.
> >Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
shall
> >they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
>
> And as a group we do. There are obviously a few people in the mission
> field who find themselves speaking in languages they don't know ahead
> of time to unbelievers about Jesus.
As a group? How many in your group do, Dennis?
> THAT is tongues.
No Dennis. That is Wycliff Bible Translators, or language schools. Many many
missionaries LEARN foreign languages. Tongues are languages that we don't
learn.
> But babbling incoherently in church on Sunday, or believing that it is
> "prayer" to babble incoherently when you are alone? Face it; NOTHING
> LIKE THAT IS IN THE BIBLE, or is from God.
You don;t believe that Paul was speaking of a real phenomenon when he
descibed "speaking mysteries unto God?"
> >Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord
working
> >with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
> >
> >> You didn't REALLY believe it was tongues, did you? If you did, I
> >> apologize for treating it so lightly!
> >
> >You make too much out of your assumptions Dennis. The power of Pentecost
is
> >Jesus Christ coming to dwell in the heart and giving birth to a uniform
> >church who holds HIM to be the Living God, with signs following.
> >
> Try again. The Power of Pentecost is Jesus Christ coming into the
> heart, PERIOD. Those of us who have Him there, when we meet ARE
> church.
I agree with you Dennis, but I do not extract the idea from the reality and
attempt to stand it on a display stand apart from the dynamic and
transforming experience of the Holy Ghost. What question was asked of the
believers in Acts 19, Dennis?
"Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE YOU BELIEVED?" Their answer, simply
put was "no". What is yours and how do you know? Is it because you reformed?
Is it because my questions make you angry? Would you not prefer a BIBLICAL
criteria for confidence?
learner
No, it was _a_ sign, and because it happened with Cornelius, they did
accept him. They would not have done so otherwise. It was a one-time
thing though, the first Gentile being admitted into the church.
First-time things don't happen over and over again.
>
>> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
>
>No.
>
>> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
>> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
>> evidence.
>
>There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
>matter before.
Not satisfactorily as I remember. OF COURSE the tongues as of fire
were a sign; what else could they be? Every bit as much as tongues.
But it is inconvenient for the pentecostals because they cannot
reproduce anything that "sounds like" it. So they ignore it and hope
it won't be noticed, I think.
>
>> How about the mighty sound as of a mighty wind? Is THAT "the sign of
>> the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
>
>The sound was probably related to the 120 individuals speaking in tongues.
Not at all. Try again, Mark.
Acts 2: 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent
rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing
themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
with other tongues, as the Spirit was
giving them utterance.
Sounds like a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, a chronological monologue about what
happened. The sound as of a mighty wind first, then the tongues as of
fire, and then the filling of the Holy Spirit AND (THEN THEY) began to
speak in tongues..
No, it does NOT say the tongues "sounded like a wind." Not at all,
Mark. You have to STREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETCH it way out of context
to make it pretend to be that.
>This is what it sounds like when this happens.
Pure nonsense! I have been in rooms where many languages were being
spoken by many people and it does NOT sound like a "mighty rushing
wind" at all! You just have to "force" it to seem that way in order
to justify your religion's teaching. That is called, "wresting" the
scriptures.
>If not. are you also going to
>require that the direction of the sound is identical? How about the fact
>that they were sitting?
>How about the number of people?
Not me! I'm not the one who is trying to claim that people aren't
baptized in the Holy Spirit if certain "evidence signs" don't occur;
YOUR RELIGION IS THE ONE SAYING THAT!
YOUR RELIGION is the one that has to justify it's position that the
rest of us haven't been baptized in the Holy Ghost, when indeed we
have, as the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT shows!
>
>> If not, why not. Why just pick one. Why not include the WHOLE THING?
>
>> Or is that just not convenient? You cannot produce anything that
>> appears to be like those things to the unstudied?
>
>Actually, Acts 10 is an issue that you cannot and have not answered. The
>Apostles themselves reasoned this way.
They (Jews that didn't believe that Gentiles could be in Christ's
church) saw a SIGN (not a "required" sign, but a sign) in tongues, and
they believed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 says that is what tongues is for.
But the Apostles themselves are NOT recorded ANYWHERE to have reasoned
that this sign should be present in EVERY Holy Spirit Baptism. NOT
ONE SCRIPTURE says so.
>Secondly, Acts 8 shows that there was
>a distinct and specific phenomenon that occured with the people of Samaria
>receiving the Holy Ghost, such that Simon wanted to purchase the power to
>reproduce it. Thirdly, Paul likewise saw this occur, and was evidently
>satisfied that these BELIEVERS had now received the Holy Ghost.
But it NEVER says that that phenomenon was tongues, now does it? NOT
ONCE. You are ASSUMING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
I have seen sizable groups of people come to the Lord in a single
afternoon or evening, and it is a GREAT phenomenon even though not one
bit of babbling OR tongues was present. Just changed lives! Why
isn't that enough for you, Mark? Why the hang-up on one of the
"lesser" gifts, tongues?
1 Corinthians 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not
prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not
workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with
tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still
more excellent way.
>
>> >The power of
>> >Pentecost is the extraordinary new birth experience promised and desire
>for
>> >centuries, exactly as it occured on the day of Pentecost.
>>
>> You still haven't said what "the power of Pentecost" is. If you are
>> claiming it is tongues, you are still off base! Tongues was just a
>> VERY small part of it. 3,000 CHANGED LIVES were MUCH MORE
>> SIGNIFICANT!
>
>Yes, I have said. It is the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the ensuing
>transformations of a supernatural birth. Without speaking in tongues
>however, no matter how much a person is excited about a reformation and
>religious zeal, there is no new birth.
SHOW ME THAT in the bible! Show me ONE SINGLE VERSE that says that
without TONGUES there is no new birth! YOU CANNOT! IT SIMPLY IS NOT
THERE. IT IS ONE OF THE FALSE DOCTRINES OF YOUR RELIGION, Mark!
I know MANY Christians who have NEVER spoken in tongues, but who
reflect the FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT in their lives every day of their
lives, and YOU want to PRETEND they haven't experienced a new birth,
even though those lives are in STARK CONTRAST to what they were before
they were saved. And all because of the LOVING GOD WE LIVE FOR? We
could NEVER change ourselves like that, and we wouldn't have if we
could have. IT WAS GOD, OPERATING THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, and nobody
else!
And YOU CANNOT find one single verse to show we are wrong! You
haven't yet shown ONE COMMAND to speak in tongues, ONE STATEMENT
SAYING that tongues will always happen at Holy Spirit Baptism, or ONE
VERSE that shows that ANY of the 3,000 spoke in tongues, Paul at his
conversion spoke in tongues, the jailer spoke in tongues, OR that the
Eunuch spoke in tongues. NOT ONE VERSE! NOT ONE COMMAND! NOT ONE
STATEMENT!
Just "conclusions" and assumptions on your part!
>> >
>> >People receive remission of sins, and infusion of power for new life,
>with
>> >the pheomenon that occured and continues to occur in the name of Jesus.
>>
>> Not from speaking in tongues. Tongues has nothing to do with the
>> remission of sins. Not anywhere in the Bible.
>
>Thats correct, however tongues IS a sign of receiving the Holy Ghost, and
>receiving the Holy Ghost is an element of the new birth that is complimented
>by remission of sins. They go together in the phenomenon of Pentecost.
Tongues CAN BE one sign of receiving the Holy Ghost, but FRUIT OF THE
SPIRIT ALWAYS IS. And "ALL DO NOT SPEAK IN TONGUES, DO THEY?" That
is what Paul said. Why don't you believe him?
>
>> >> The POWER at Pentecost was reflected in GOD CHANGING ABOUT 3,000
>> >> LIVES, and saving about 3,000 SOULS. Tongues, sound as of a mighty
>> >> wind, and tongues as of fire got people's attention, but the POWER was
>> >> the POWER of God in about 3,000 lives, not tongues!
>> >
>> >It is your belief that the 3,000 did not receive the same sign.
>>
>> There is NO SCRIPTURAL REASON TO BELIEVE that they did. It is not
>> there.
>
>Yes there is. The Apostles expected it,
No they didn't. The Bible NEVER SAYS THEY DID. YOU _ASSUME_ they
did, but it isn't in the Bible!
>exactly as we see them expecting it
>in Cornelius' house, and confirming the experience of the seekers there, by
>this sign.
No, they didn't "expect" it. And it was not just "the experience of
the seekers," but it was the SIGN that GENTILES may join the church
where only JEWS had been allowed before. It was a one-time event, the
first GENTILE into the church.
But it does NOT SAY ANYWHERE that they "expected it" at all. YOU ARE
AGAIN _ASSUMING_ something that is not in the text at all! NOT ONE
WORD about them "expecting" them to speak in tongues at all! Just
your ASSUMPTION.
Your whole religion seems to be built upon such ASSUMPTIONS, Mark. My
beliefs are based upon what IS IN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE, not on
assumptions like yours.
>Besides this, tongues is shown as present and eminent in
>churches down the road in time, in the Epistles. Paul is speaking with
>tongues., ALL of the 120 spoke in tongues.
Not "eminent," Mark. The gift of tongues is only talked about in a
very few chapters in 1 Corinthians, and mentioned about 3 occurances
in Acts. Not in the 4 Gospels. Not in ANY of the other Epistles.
Your religion makes a big thing about tongues. Christianity in the
Bible didn't. It pointed out 3 events in Acts that were signs, each
in one-time events. It pointed out the ABUSES in 1 Corinthians by the
carnal Corinthians. And that is all. PERIOD.
But your religion seems to think that Christianity rotates arount
tongues, a concept COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the Bible.
And you have shown us that your religion is based upon ASSUMPTIONS.
> You have no reason whatsoever to
>suppose that the 3,000 did not receive this same experience,
Except that the text of the Bible NEVER SAYS they did; your religion
just ASSUMES it did, with no textual basis whatsoever to give it
crecence!
> and have an
>impossible time explaining the pattern of their using this sign to measure
>whether the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in chapter 10.
Since there IS NO "PATTERN," I have no difficulty pointing that out.
Tongues are for a SIGN to unbelievers, as 1 Corinthians 14:22 says.
In Acts 10, the Jews (whom 1 Corinthians 14:19 was originally
addressed to) did NOT BELIEVE that Gentiles could be allowed into the
church. Now they knew. And they have known ever since, so the sign
doesn't have to be repeated over and over again.
>When we see it
>replicate again in a complete group of believers in Acts 19, long after the
>question of whether gentiles can receive the Holy Ghost was settled, there
>is no longer a reason to doubt.
Try again. Jews who had been baptized into the baptism of John the
Baptist, NOT Christian baptism (Jesus had not yet died, been
resurrected, paid for our sins). Again, an event that will never be
done again. Jews WHO DID NOT YET BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW.
A Sign for unbelieving Jews as in 1 Cor 14:22.
NOT an event that will be repeated. NOT a "pattern" at all, but a
"special event!"
You STILL can't show us this "pattern," Mark. Just 3 "one-time
events."
>
>> >However, men
>> >and women DID receive that sign thereafter. For example, in the gentiles
>> >home in Acts 10,
You are being redundant. The gentile's home in Acts 10 was the one
where there were UNBELIEVING JEWS who needed the sign for a ONE-TIME
event.
>and in Ephesus, in acts 19. I believe that the experience was and is consistent.
No, where there were UNBELIEVING JEWS who needed the sign for a
ONE-TIME event.
2 out of the ONLY 3 times in the whole Bible where the two events
(tongues and Holy Spirit Baptism) happened together.
>>
>> These two instances, as with Acts 2 were SPECIAL EVENTS. Each was an
>> event that would never be repeated. The Holy Spirit came into the
>> church for the first time in Acts 2. Cornelius was the first Gentile
>> in the church. And those folks who were baptized by John the Baptist
>> before Jesus was crucified will not be found to be around today.
>
>Thanks .. Now how about Acts 19. How does this fit into your neat
>explain-away?
No explainaway. Just FACTS. You haven't shown ANY "normal pattern"
of anything yet. SHOW US. So far you haven't been able to.
>
>> But NOT ONE WORD about the 3,000 speaking in tongues when they
>> received the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> NOT ONE WORD when Paul became a Christian, the Jailer became a
>> Christian, or the Eunuch either.
>
>So when DID Paul begin to speak in tongues? At the Burger King when they
>held the pickle?
Trite stupidity does not make for good questions, Mark. Paul began to
speak in tongues sometime AFTER his salvation experience, obviously.
In the detailed account of His conversion tongues are NOT mentioned
anywhere, not one time. What they saw, said, heard, did, and thought
is recorded, but NOT ONE WORD ABOUT TONGUES. So it had to happen at
some later time; when is not important.
>
>> So when the Bible NEVER SAYS that any of these folks spoke in tongues
>> when they received the Holy Ghost, why should I pretend they did?
>
>You shouldnt pretend. You should NOT assume they did not on the basis that
>YOU yourself did not speak in tongues.
I am assuming they did not because the Bible NEVER SAYS ANYTHING THAT
WOULD CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE THEY DID.
I'm sorry Mark, but I don't base my beliefs on my experiences. I base
it upon SCRIPTURE. You should do the same.
SCRIPTURE SAYS that "ALL DO _NOT_ speak in tongues, do they?" in
reference to CHRISTIANS. (1 Cor 12:31)
AND SCRIPTURE SAYS, "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made
to drink of one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13)
NOT ALL Christians speak in tongues.
ALL CHRISTIANS ARE baptized into the body by the Holy Spirit.
So WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURE, Mark?
>
>> >Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
>shall
>> >they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
>>
>> And as a group we do. There are obviously a few people in the mission
>> field who find themselves speaking in languages they don't know ahead
>> of time to unbelievers about Jesus.
>
>As a group? How many in your group do, Dennis?
Not many. But the Bible never SAYS how many, does it?
>
>> THAT is tongues.
>
>No Dennis. That is Wycliff Bible Translators, or language schools. Many many
>missionaries LEARN foreign languages. Tongues are languages that we don't
>learn.
So why do you have to LEARN languages if you can speak them WITHOUT
LEARNING, as Paul must have done?
>
>> But babbling incoherently in church on Sunday, or believing that it is
>> "prayer" to babble incoherently when you are alone? Face it; NOTHING
>> LIKE THAT IS IN THE BIBLE, or is from God.
>
>You don;t believe that Paul was speaking of a real phenomenon when he
>descibed "speaking mysteries unto God?"
In the Greek, the "mysteries" are "things unheard" by other people.
You have to depend upon the KJV translation to make it sound like it
is something nobody else could understand if they heard it.
>
>> >Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord
>working
>> >with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
>> >
>> >> You didn't REALLY believe it was tongues, did you? If you did, I
>> >> apologize for treating it so lightly!
>> >
>> >You make too much out of your assumptions Dennis. The power of Pentecost
>is
>> >Jesus Christ coming to dwell in the heart and giving birth to a uniform
>> >church who holds HIM to be the Living God, with signs following.
>> >
>> Try again. The Power of Pentecost is Jesus Christ coming into the
>> heart, PERIOD. Those of us who have Him there, when we meet ARE
>> church.
>
>I agree with you Dennis, but I do not extract the idea from the reality and
>attempt to stand it on a display stand apart from the dynamic and
>transforming experience of the Holy Ghost. What question was asked of the
>believers in Acts 19, Dennis?
The believers were believers that the messiah would come; people who
did NOT KNOW JESUS yet!
>
>"Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE YOU BELIEVED?" Their answer, simply
>put was "no". What is yours and how do you know?
Because the Holy Spirit lives within me and guides me, and empowers me
in my weakness, reminding me of what Jesus said and did, and teaching
me by helping me understand God's Word, the Bible.
>Is it because you reformed?
No, but that is pretty solid evidence. HE reformed me; I didn't. Why
don't you want to give JESUS the Credit DUE HIM?
>Is it because my questions make you angry? Would you not prefer a BIBLICAL
>criteria for confidence?
>
I HAVE the biblical criteria for confidence. I have the FRUIT OF THE
SPIRIT in my life. I am a NEW MAN since He changed me. I live for
HIM, not for myself.
And babbling OR tongues have nothing to do with that. Just God, His
HOLY SPIRIT IN MY LIFE. "By their FRUIT you will know them," Mark,
NOT "by their babbling you will know them."
And because He has given me that FRUIT, I am confident that God is
TRUE to HIS WORD, and I have nothing to fear.
Sorry Mark, but you have not shown ONE SINGLE REASON to believe your
ASSUMPTIONS.
Learner
Mark Bassett
Actually, In Acts 19, they spoke in tongues again. Why is that Dennis, if
this was a sign that was needed only to signify the entrance of the
Gentiles. And, not meaning to be picky, but if so, why does the scripture
not record the Ethiopian speaking in tongues?
> First-time things don't happen over and over again.
Its your assertion that the sign of tongues is associated only with first
time things. You yourself might answer the question of why then there were
no toungues of fire VISIBLE in Cornelius' house? Or, do we assume they were?
> >
> >> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
> >
> >No.
> >
> >> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
> >> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
> >> evidence.
> >
> >There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
> >matter before.
>
> Not satisfactorily as I remember. OF COURSE the tongues as of fire
> were a sign; what else could they be? Every bit as much as tongues.
> But it is inconvenient for the pentecostals because they cannot
> reproduce anything that "sounds like" it. So they ignore it and hope
> it won't be noticed, I think.
Do you know -what- the tongues of fire meant, Dennis, and -why- God used
this sign, and did not repeat it?
> >> How about the mighty sound as of a mighty wind? Is THAT "the sign of
> >> the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
> >
> >The sound was probably related to the 120 individuals speaking in
tongues.
>
> Not at all. Try again, Mark.
>
> Acts 2: 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent
> rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
> 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing
> themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
> 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
> with other tongues, as the Spirit was
> giving them utterance.
>
> Sounds like a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, a chronological monologue about what
> happened. The sound as of a mighty wind first, then the tongues as of
> fire, and then the filling of the Holy Spirit AND (THEN THEY) began to
> speak in tongues..
You assume that there was a sequence of events. I believe that this was a
description of a instantaneous manifestation of the Holy Ghost, with the
'and' serving to unite the description of things that were happening
Again, I have heard thousands speaking with tongues at the same time, and it
does indeed sound very much like wind. Indeed, it is the breath of God from
heaven, that is giving utterance in languages never learned by the speaker.
> No, it does NOT say the tongues "sounded like a wind." Not at all,
> Mark. You have to STREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETCH it way out of context
> to make it pretend to be that.
They heard a "sound from heaven LIKE a rushing mighty wind". Dennis, when
the word LIKE is used in a descriptive illustration the technical term for
the contruct is a SIMILE. Look it up.
>
> >This is what it sounds like when this happens.
>
> Pure nonsense! I have been in rooms where many languages were being
> spoken by many people and it does NOT sound like a "mighty rushing
> wind" at all! You just have to "force" it to seem that way in order
> to justify your religion's teaching. That is called, "wresting" the
> scriptures.
Yes, it does, actually. It sounds exactly like a wind.
> >If not. are you also going to
> >require that the direction of the sound is identical? How about the fact
> >that they were sitting?
> >How about the number of people?
>
> Not me! I'm not the one who is trying to claim that people aren't
> baptized in the Holy Spirit if certain "evidence signs" don't occur;
> YOUR RELIGION IS THE ONE SAYING THAT!
Thats right, we are saying that the sign of tongues repeats. It repeats in
scripture, and it repeats in experience. Not yours.
Remember Dennis, you are attempting to defeat this belief by asking "why not
tongues of fire?" and "why not the sound of wind?" So, I put it to you,
should ALL things be identical in order for there to be at least one sign?
Is it really ALL or nothing?
You explained why you think that Cornelius' house broke the pattern that you
were trying to advance (i.e. signs only for the 120) - [others believe for
the 12 only, of course]
> YOUR RELIGION is the one that has to justify it's position that the
> rest of us haven't been baptized in the Holy Ghost, when indeed we
> have, as the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT shows!
Again, fruit takes time to develop. It does not manifest instantaneously, in
nature or in spirit.
Tongues is a superficial sign that occurs instantly.
I personally doube very much whether one would ever meet a professing
christian (saved or not) who, if asked, "do you have fruit?" would answer
"no".
We all judge ourselves favorably Dennis. This is not verification of the
indwelling Spirit of God.
> >> If not, why not. Why just pick one. Why not include the WHOLE THING?
> >
> >> Or is that just not convenient? You cannot produce anything that
> >> appears to be like those things to the unstudied?
> >
> >Actually, Acts 10 is an issue that you cannot and have not answered. The
> >Apostles themselves reasoned this way.
>
> They (Jews that didn't believe that Gentiles could be in Christ's
> church) saw a SIGN (not a "required" sign, but a sign) in tongues, and
> they believed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 says that is what tongues is for.
So then, every time that someone received the Holy Ghost under the ministry
of Jewish Christians, either then or now, tomgues manifest?
BTW, there are additional purposes of tongues listed. Why ignore that?
> But the Apostles themselves are NOT recorded ANYWHERE to have reasoned
> that this sign should be present in EVERY Holy Spirit Baptism. NOT
> ONE SCRIPTURE says so.
The scripture doesnt say that Jesus got colds, or that the Apostles took
baths, but we can believe they did.
The Apostles ARE demostrated as reasoning that those who spoke in tongues
DID receive the Holy Ghost. We have NO evidence of them having been
impressed by anything else, as a sign.
> >Secondly, Acts 8 shows that there was
> >a distinct and specific phenomenon that occured with the people of
Samaria
> >receiving the Holy Ghost, such that Simon wanted to purchase the power to
> >reproduce it. Thirdly, Paul likewise saw this occur, and was evidently
> >satisfied that these BELIEVERS had now received the Holy Ghost.
>
> But it NEVER says that that phenomenon was tongues, now does it? NOT
> ONCE. You are ASSUMING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
What phenomenon was it? Again, you question it concerning Acts 8, but Acts
19 falls out of your list of slippery explanations.
Again, what phenomenon was it, Dennis?
> I have seen sizable groups of people come to the Lord in a single
> afternoon or evening, and it is a GREAT phenomenon even though not one
> bit of babbling OR tongues was present. Just changed lives!
Thats nice.
> Why isn't that enough for you, Mark? Why the hang-up on one of the
> "lesser" gifts, tongues?
It is the evidence of the new birth. Follow some of these "changed lives"
sometime, Dennis. Where is the Holy Ghost when one of these "changed lives"
goes from prayer and tears in a Saturday session with Promise Keepers right
back to the adulterous relationship, but this time as a "Christian". What
you are saying sounds good Dennis, but did you not know that people reform
themselves for all kinds of reasons, many times because of guilt and
weariness of the life of destruction?
I personally quit using drugs, and stopped drinking and running around long
before I heard the gospel. Why did I do that? Because I was ashamed of
myself and weary with the total emptiness. I was not reading the Bible. I
was not listening to instructions from some "witness". There was no church
involved - I would never have gone to church. I even quit with the phoney
eastern religions and witchcraft.
Yet, my "changed life" wasnt because I repented. It was because I figured
that the way I was living was bad news.
I heard the gospel two years later and I received the Holy Spirit almost
three years later.
> 1 Corinthians 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not
> prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not
> workers of miracles, are they?
> 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with
> tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
> 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still
> more excellent way.
The gifts of the spirit in the body of Christ are a different story. The
manifestation of tongues occurs when the new birth occurs. Some of these may
be used to deliver a message in tongues, but not all. Same thing with
healing.
> >> >The power of
> >> >Pentecost is the extraordinary new birth experience promised and
desire
> >for
> >> >centuries, exactly as it occured on the day of Pentecost.
> >>
> >> You still haven't said what "the power of Pentecost" is. If you are
> >> claiming it is tongues, you are still off base! Tongues was just a
> >> VERY small part of it. 3,000 CHANGED LIVES were MUCH MORE
> >> SIGNIFICANT!
> >
> >Yes, I have said. It is the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the ensuing
> >transformations of a supernatural birth. Without speaking in tongues
> >however, no matter how much a person is excited about a reformation and
> >religious zeal, there is no new birth.
>
> SHOW ME THAT in the bible! Show me ONE SINGLE VERSE that says that
> without TONGUES there is no new birth! YOU CANNOT! IT SIMPLY IS NOT
> THERE. IT IS ONE OF THE FALSE DOCTRINES OF YOUR RELIGION, Mark!
Calm down Dennis. When you receive the Holy Ghost, you WILL speak with
tongues, just the same way that people did in the scripure, in Acts 2, in
Acts 19, in Acts 10, and by implication in Acts 8. The Apostles accepted
this sign, and it does manifest today.
Of course if people refuse to believe it, it will be surpressed. Yet, we are
warned
1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not
to speak with tongues.
> I know MANY Christians who have NEVER spoken in tongues, but who
> reflect the FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT in their lives every day of their
> lives, and YOU want to PRETEND they haven't experienced a new birth,
> even though those lives are in STARK CONTRAST to what they were before
> they were saved.
Maybe Mahatma Ghandi was saved, Dennis. Maybe Malcomb X was saved. He
changed.
> And all because of the LOVING GOD WE LIVE FOR? We
> could NEVER change ourselves like that, and we wouldn't have if we
> could have. IT WAS GOD, OPERATING THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, and nobody
> else!
Dennis - You can believe that you are without an experience that is
validated by scripture (the only confirming foundation for our spiritual
experience), or you can ask God for the gift of the Holy Ghost. You don't
have to worry about anyone criticizing you, and you certainly arent about to
impress me with the level of arguement you generate.
Ask God in private, and worship him vocally, and with your whole heart. Lift
up your hands and voice, and receive the Spirit of God with your mind on Him
and not yourself.
I have no more time this evening.
God bless you Dennis!
learner
You posted:
Simple line. Either the Holy Spirit is within you, living in the
Temple of your body (and you are a Christian), or He is not. He
doesn't just "come visit for a while."
>God is good to those who lift His name up for His purpose, regardless
>if you are oneness or trinity.
God brings rain to the good and the evil. But He does not bring the
FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT into the non-Christian's life for years and
years on end.
If you don't HAVE the Holy Spirit living in you (if you have not been
Baptized by the Holy Spirit), the FRUIT of the Sprit cannot be
present; He is not part of you.
There is no such thing as a "part-time" Christian. No "fine line"
that you can cross over from day to day.
>But if you keep using "nowhere does it
>say any of the 3,000 spoke in tongues", then you are only fooling
>yourself.
No, I am merely pointing out something that is ABSOLUTE TRUTH. You
cannot show one single scripture that says they did; it simply is NOT
THERE ANYWHERE.
>Jesus said believers will speak with new tongues.
And we do. But Jesus NEVER SAID "ALL BELIEVERS," or "EVERY BELIEVER"
would speak in tongues. The Bible says:
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to all creation.
16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he
who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name
they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison,
it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will
recover."
It is clear that He is speaking of Christians AS A GROUP here, and NOT
_EVERY_ INDIVIDUAL.
Otherwise every individual would have to cast out some demons, play
with snakes, and drink deadly poison, then heal someone.
No, Jesus NEVER said that EVERY BELIEVER would speak in tongues, and
Paul said clearly that we do not:
1 Corinthians 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do
not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
No Stephen, as Paul said, ALL DO NOT speak in tongues.
Some of us do. Most of us don't. And that is perfectly in line with
ALL of Scripture.
>The Bible
>doesn't always say every detail for every event, does it? It doesn't
>always say people wore clothes or smiled or whatever, but it's implied
>as someone's reading comprehension would do for the reader.
But IMPORTANT THINGS, like if the 3,000 had spoken in tongues at
their salvation, or if Paul (in the HIGHLY DETAILED account of his
salvation experience) had spoken in tongues WOULD BE recorded. NOBODY
except 3 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (1st entry of the Holy Spirit into the
church, a dozen folks who had been baptized by John the Baptist before
Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and the first Gentile into the
church) IS EVER RECORDED as speaking in tongues when they received the
Holy Spirit baptism.
>
>A move of the Spirit inspired me to live my life better, and I did for
>awhile, but I was NOT baptized with the Spirit yet. When it did happen
>-- WOAH. What a difference! My life was anew! It's a promise for you.
>Don't let these petty arguments stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost
>baptism. It's promised to you.
>
And it was RECEIVED BY ME almost 30 years ago, and the Holy Spirit has
produced FRUIT in my life EVER SINCE. Not just for a while. Not just
to "make me feel better about myself," but to mould me more and more
into HIS Image. WHAT A DIFFERENCE? Boy! There was no question about
it when it happened! But no tongues are required. Just God coming
into me!
If tongues was the only "evidence" you had, I am sorry for you, but
that is not "it."
Learner
Raymond
> Hello "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>,
> No, it was _a_ sign, and because it happened with Cornelius, they did
> accept him. They would not have done so otherwise. It was a one-time
> thing though, the first Gentile being admitted into the church.
>
> First-time things don't happen over and over again.
So everyone has gone to Hell and everyone will go to Hell as salvation by
Jesus was a first time thing, and happen and by your teaching all is lost
and never will happen again. So no one can accept Jesus and be born again
and feel the blessings of God, as that is all old stuff and doesn't happen
over and over again. If we use your logic.
> >
> >> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
> >
> >No.
> >
> >> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
> >> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
> >> evidence.
> >
> >There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
> >matter before.
>
> Not satisfactorily as I remember. OF COURSE the tongues as of fire
> were a sign; what else could they be? Every bit as much as tongues.
> But it is inconvenient for the pentecostals because they cannot
> reproduce anything that "sounds like" it. So they ignore it and hope
> it won't be noticed, I think.
I been in meetings where people could feel the fire some said they could see
the fire on the heads of people. Just because you were not there doesn't
mean it did not happen. God is not a show off, if such things were common
it be easy to convert the world to God, wouldn't even need the Holy Ghost
conviction, just a display of fire on peoples heads and noise so loud
everyone could hear it, and Wow everyone one would be so full of fear, they
do what ever the Preacher would say. Wonder what you would have to say
about that? Again when we look into what you say, it is illogical.
John Fraser
"Bro. William M. Price" <bill...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:v3nhkec...@corp.supernews.com...
> Learner,
>
> True, one of the evidence of the baptism is a changed life. However, the
> initial evidence is the speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
As the Spirit gives utterance. In reality, you're saying that Learner
has something wrong in his life because the Spirit didn't give him utterance
as he is supposed to do, not as he might do. Who decides who should speak
in tongues, the Holy Spirit or his followers?
Cheers,
John
learner
I never said it was only to signify the entrance of the Gentiles,
Mark. I said it was a sign for _unbelieving Jews_, and in all 3
instances it happened with unbelieving Jews. Here it was Jews who had
been baptized with John's baptism before Jesus was crucified and
resurrected, to show them that Jesus IS the Messiah John had been
preparing the way for. It won't happen again today. It was one of
the 3 "special events" for _unbelieving Jews_.
>
>> First-time things don't happen over and over again.
>
>Its your assertion that the sign of tongues is associated only with first
>time things. You yourself might answer the question of why then there were
>no toungues of fire VISIBLE in Cornelius' house? Or, do we assume they were?
No, we don't. Tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jews (1Cor 14:22).
I NEVER said that tongues always happened with tongues as of fire, or
with the mighty wind sound.
Those things happened for only one event and were never repeated. BUT
IF you claim that because tongues happened at that event they MUST
ALWAYS happen (which I do not claim), THEN it is only logical to
include the ENTIRE EVENT, not just the tongues part. After all, it is
dishonest to just pick the parts you like or can look like you are
replicating.
>> >
>> >> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
>> >> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> >There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
>> >matter before.
>>
>> Not satisfactorily as I remember. OF COURSE the tongues as of fire
>> were a sign; what else could they be? Every bit as much as tongues.
>> But it is inconvenient for the pentecostals because they cannot
>> reproduce anything that "sounds like" it. So they ignore it and hope
>> it won't be noticed, I think.
>
>Do you know -what- the tongues of fire meant, Dennis, and -why- God used
>this sign, and did not repeat it?
Since the Bible doesn't say, I don't. What are your ASSUMPTIONS,
Mark?
>
>> >> How about the mighty sound as of a mighty wind? Is THAT "the sign of
>> >> the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
>> >
>> >The sound was probably related to the 120 individuals speaking in
>tongues.
>>
>> Not at all. Try again, Mark.
>>
>> Acts 2: 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent
>> rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
>> 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing
>> themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
>> 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
>> with other tongues, as the Spirit was
>> giving them utterance.
>>
>> Sounds like a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, a chronological monologue about what
>> happened. The sound as of a mighty wind first, then the tongues as of
>> fire, and then the filling of the Holy Spirit AND (THEN THEY) began to
>> speak in tongues..
>
>You assume that there was a sequence of events. I believe that this was a
>description of a instantaneous manifestation of the Holy Ghost, with the
>'and' serving to unite the description of things that were happening
>
>Again, I have heard thousands speaking with tongues at the same time, and it
>does indeed sound very much like wind. Indeed, it is the breath of God from
>heaven, that is giving utterance in languages never learned by the speaker.
There were only 120. I have been in more than one room where people
have talked in multiple languages. It does not sound like a "violent
rushing wind;" it sounds like a large group of people talking in
multiple languages. Not similar at all. You have to PRETEND or
STREEEEEEEETCH your imagination to claim that they sound the same!
>
>> No, it does NOT say the tongues "sounded like a wind." Not at all,
>> Mark. You have to STREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETCH it way out of context
>> to make it pretend to be that.
>
>They heard a "sound from heaven LIKE a rushing mighty wind". Dennis, when
>the word LIKE is used in a descriptive illustration the technical term for
>the contruct is a SIMILE. Look it up.
And that is because they are SIMILAR; they ARE ALIKE. God was not
playing word games, Mark. People talking in different languages do
not make a "sound" that is a miracle. You are twisting the scripture
to make it say something it does not say. It does NOT SAY,
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like "a LOT OF PEOPLE
TALKING" and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
You are ripping the context and changing the meaning of the passage if
you claim what you are claiming. SHAME ON YOU, Mark!
I will not read the text of my Bible so loosely!
>> >This is what it sounds like when this happens.
>>
>> Pure nonsense! I have been in rooms where many languages were being
>> spoken by many people and it does NOT sound like a "mighty rushing
>> wind" at all! You just have to "force" it to seem that way in order
>> to justify your religion's teaching. That is called, "wresting" the
>> scriptures.
>
>Yes, it does, actually. It sounds exactly like a wind.
Perhaps a gentle breeze, but NOT a "MIGHTY RUSHING WIND."
And you KNOW IT, Mark!
>
>> >If not. are you also going to
>> >require that the direction of the sound is identical? How about the fact
>> >that they were sitting?
>> >How about the number of people?
>>
>> Not me! I'm not the one who is trying to claim that people aren't
>> baptized in the Holy Spirit if certain "evidence signs" don't occur;
>> YOUR RELIGION IS THE ONE SAYING THAT!
>
>Thats right, we are saying that the sign of tongues repeats. It repeats in
>scripture, and it repeats in experience. Not yours.
Your religion says that it repeats in scripture (and it does, but only
3 times and every time it is a non-repetitive event), and your
religion says that it repeats in experience (which when seen by
unbelievers is virtually universally called, "babbling incoherently,"
and virtually never called "speaking in a foreign language."
Yet you depend upon that EXPERIENCE to base your religion upon.
I won't do that, Mark.
>
>Remember Dennis, you are attempting to defeat this belief by asking "why not
>tongues of fire?" and "why not the sound of wind?" So, I put it to you,
>should ALL things be identical in order for there to be at least one sign?
>Is it really ALL or nothing?
No Mark. I am pointing out that your belief that we MUST do it
exactly as they did in Acts 2 means that IF IT WERE SO (and it is not)
THEN it really is all or nothing. Either it IS the same, or it IS NOT
the same.
>
>You explained why you think that Cornelius' house broke the pattern that you
>were trying to advance (i.e. signs only for the 120) - [others believe for
>the 12 only, of course]
No, I pointed out that THERE IS NO SUCH PATTERN of tongues regularly
occuring when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs.
The first time there were THREE signs. The second and third times
there was only ONE sign. And in EVERY OTHER TIME IN THE BIBLE, there
were NO tongues, tongues as of fire, OR mighty wind sounds.
NO such pattern, Mark. Just the pattern of CHANGED LIVES, FRUIT OF THE
SPIRIT. Not a pattern of tongues OR tongues as of fire, OR mighty
wind.
BUT IF you claim that it must be like it was for the 120 in Acts 2,
you cannot honestly take just the part that you think you can
replicate and IGNORE the rest of the same event.
>
> > YOUR RELIGION is the one that has to justify it's position that the
>> rest of us haven't been baptized in the Holy Ghost, when indeed we
>> have, as the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT shows!
>
>Again, fruit takes time to develop. It does not manifest instantaneously, in
>nature or in spirit.
Actually it can to some extent. My sister stopped taking drugs and
alcohol, and stopped smoking instantaneously. A friend of mine
stopped contemplating suicide (he walked into a motel room with a
loaded 45 intending to do that, found an open Gideon Bible, read,
found Jesus, and became a Christian that night), stopped drinking,
stopped smoking, and his personality changed enough that he stopped
beating his wife and kids. They were amazed beyond description! He
has remained in that "changed state" the rest of the 30 + years I have
known him!
>
>Tongues is a superficial sign that occurs instantly.
Babbling can be done by anyone, as the thing with Larry Flynt and
others shows very clearly. It is easily faked, and can happen to
anyone who is enthusiastic and wants it to.
It is not evidence of anything. But it IS what the pentecostals call,
"tongues."
>
>I personally doube very much whether one would ever meet a professing
>christian (saved or not) who, if asked, "do you have fruit?" would answer
>"no".
No, but you don't ask the Christian. You ask his friends, relatives,
and acquaintences. Fruit is visible to the outsider.
"By their fruit you shall know them." NOT "by their babbling you
shall know them," or "by their tongues you shall know them."
>
>We all judge ourselves favorably Dennis. This is not verification of the
>indwelling Spirit of God.
>
>> >> If not, why not. Why just pick one. Why not include the WHOLE THING?
>> >
>> >> Or is that just not convenient? You cannot produce anything that
>> >> appears to be like those things to the unstudied?
>> >
>> >Actually, Acts 10 is an issue that you cannot and have not answered. The
>> >Apostles themselves reasoned this way.
>>
>> They (Jews that didn't believe that Gentiles could be in Christ's
>> church) saw a SIGN (not a "required" sign, but a sign) in tongues, and
>> they believed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 says that is what tongues is for.
>
>So then, every time that someone received the Holy Ghost under the ministry
>of Jewish Christians, either then or now, tomgues manifest?
No, but when tongues happened, it was for the unbelieveing Jews. And
in all 3 cases in the Bible, unbelieving Jews were present.
>
>BTW, there are additional purposes of tongues listed. Why ignore that?
Where does it say tongues IS FOR anything else?
It says that it is misused for other things, but it never says it IS
FOR those things.
>
>> But the Apostles themselves are NOT recorded ANYWHERE to have reasoned
>> that this sign should be present in EVERY Holy Spirit Baptism. NOT
>> ONE SCRIPTURE says so.
>
>The scripture doesnt say that Jesus got colds, or that the Apostles took
>baths, but we can believe they did.
But taking baths and getting colds are not as IMPORTANT as Holy Spirit
Baptism, are they? Claiming that God simply "forgot" to include
IMPORTANT things is fallacious, Mark.
>
>The Apostles ARE demostrated as reasoning that those who spoke in tongues
>DID receive the Holy Ghost.
Only ONE TIME. A "special event," when a GENTILE did so, something
CONTRARY to what the JEWISH Apostles would believe. A SIGN for the
JEWISH Apostles.
Not to "prove that tongues was 'the' sign of Holy Spirit Baptism," but
to prove that Gentiles (contrary to the JEWISH custom) could be
included in the things of God.
>We have NO evidence of them having been
>impressed by anything else, as a sign.
NO evidence that any such "sign" is needed.
WHO are you trying to impress with this so-called "evidence?"
Unbelievers? They think you folks are NUTS, babbling, whining,
crying, and otherwise behaving badly.
Believers? We are easily fooled. Fakes can do a real good job
convincing us; babbling comes easy to many.
God? He knows our hearts and doesn't need such "evidence."
WHO is this so-called "as evidenced by" aimed at, Mark?
>
>> >Secondly, Acts 8 shows that there was
>> >a distinct and specific phenomenon that occured with the people of
>Samaria
>> >receiving the Holy Ghost, such that Simon wanted to purchase the power to
>> >reproduce it. Thirdly, Paul likewise saw this occur, and was evidently
>> >satisfied that these BELIEVERS had now received the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> But it NEVER says that that phenomenon was tongues, now does it? NOT
>> ONCE. You are ASSUMING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
>
>What phenomenon was it? Again, you question it concerning Acts 8, but Acts
>19 falls out of your list of slippery explanations.
>
>Again, what phenomenon was it, Dennis?
People with massively changed lives. If you haven't seen wonderful
changes in people's lives when they become Christians then I submit
that you have never seen such an event happen! And if you have to
depend upon them speaking in tongues to "notice" that change, then I
must say the same thing; you have never seen such an event happen!
I have. People have their lives dramatically changed by God! They
are not the same, ever again!
And their friends, neighbors, everybody who knows them NOTICE the
change. Not because they babble, but because THEY ARE DIFFERENT. God
lives within them!
And THAT Mark, IS a "phenomenon!"
>
>> I have seen sizable groups of people come to the Lord in a single
>> afternoon or evening, and it is a GREAT phenomenon even though not one
>> bit of babbling OR tongues was present. Just changed lives!
>
>Thats nice.
It is more than that. It is miraculous! And it is from God. Not
just, "nice."
I'm sorry if you haven't seen such a thing. You've missed the Lord
working in people's lives.
>
>> Why isn't that enough for you, Mark? Why the hang-up on one of the
>> "lesser" gifts, tongues?
>
>It is the evidence of the new birth.
You've shown NO evidence that it is "the" evidence of the new birth.
Jesus said, "by their FRUIT you shall know them." NOT "by tongues."
You are perverting the Gospel, Mark.
>Follow some of these "changed lives"
>sometime, Dennis. Where is the Holy Ghost when one of these "changed lives"
>goes from prayer and tears in a Saturday session with Promise Keepers right
>back to the adulterous relationship, but this time as a "Christian".
Same thing as when they babble incoherently and do that. But I have
followed MANY of these changed lives for MANY YEARS, and my Christian
friends are STILL, after MANY MANY YEARS faithful to our Lord and
Savior who saved us.
And there are fakes in both camps, Mark, who put on their show, then
go back to their sins. This isn't a new concept for you, is it?
>What
>you are saying sounds good Dennis, but did you not know that people reform
>themselves for all kinds of reasons, many times because of guilt and
>weariness of the life of destruction?
Sure, and those who do give the credit to themselves. But the FRUIT
OF THE SPIRIT comes ONLY from the Spirit, Mark. Why don't you give
GOD the Credit HE deserves???
>
>I personally quit using drugs, and stopped drinking and running around long
>before I heard the gospel. Why did I do that? Because I was ashamed of
>myself and weary with the total emptiness. I was not reading the Bible. I
>was not listening to instructions from some "witness". There was no church
>involved - I would never have gone to church. I even quit with the phoney
>eastern religions and witchcraft.
And WHAT personal pronoun did you use throughout that WHOLE PARAGRAPH?
"I." You didn't give the credit to God. YOU did it. God did not.
But the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT comes ONLY from the Spirit, Mark.
>
>Yet, my "changed life" wasnt because I repented. It was because I figured
>that the way I was living was bad news.
Again, YOU were the center, not God.
But that is not what I am talking about, and you know it! I am
talking about GOD changing us. And HE DOES. In my own case, HE DID,
VERY DRASTICALLY. "I" would not have done so, but HE DID.
Give GOD the credit HE deserves, Mark.
I gotta git to work. Will try to come back to this later,
Learner
learner
You posted:
>
>"learner" <lea...@felthammers.com> wrote in message
>news:3e409708...@news.velocitus.net...
>> Hello "Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net>,
>
>> No, it was _a_ sign, and because it happened with Cornelius, they did
>> accept him. They would not have done so otherwise. It was a one-time
>> thing though, the first Gentile being admitted into the church.
>>
>> First-time things don't happen over and over again.
>
>So everyone has gone to Hell and everyone will go to Hell as salvation by
>Jesus was a first time thing, and happen and by your teaching all is lost
>and never will happen again. So no one can accept Jesus and be born again
>and feel the blessings of God, as that is all old stuff and doesn't happen
>over and over again. If we use your logic.
Not so. I pointed out that tongues are for a sign to unbelieving Jews,
according to 1 Corinthians 14:22.
I also pointed out that the ONLY times that tongues appeared with the
baptism of the Holy Spirit were when UNBELIEVING JEWS were involved
and then ONLY at three "one-time events;" first the entry of the Holy
Ghost into Christ's church (and that first entry will never happen
again), at the first entry of Gentiles into Jesus' church (and that
first entry won't happen again either), and with some people who were
baptized by John the Baptist before Jesus was crucified and
resurrected (which won't happen again either).
NOT ONE OTHER MENTION of tongues happening at Holy Spirit baptism is
EVER MADE IN THE BIBLE.
And you haven't been able to find me one, so you make these inane
statements pretending I am saying things I don't say.
You play a lot of stupid games Ray, trying to put down Biblical
teachings. You should not do that.
>> >
>> >> Are tongues as of fire "the sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >> If not, why not? They happened at the initial coming of the Holy
>> >> Ghost in the first of the three instances. Same event, and it WAS
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> >There were other unique aspects in the first instance. I dealt with this
>> >matter before.
>>
>> Not satisfactorily as I remember. OF COURSE the tongues as of fire
>> were a sign; what else could they be? Every bit as much as tongues.
>> But it is inconvenient for the pentecostals because they cannot
>> reproduce anything that "sounds like" it. So they ignore it and hope
>> it won't be noticed, I think.
>
>I been in meetings where people could feel the fire some said they could see
>the fire on the heads of people.
"Some said. . ." Yah, sure. People say that bouncing on a trampoline
while facing north "aligns your molecules" too. Some people will say
almost anything.
But unless it happens EVERY TIME in your religion, then you cannot
claim that you are doing exactly what happened to the 120 (but not the
3,000) in Acts 2. But your religion DOES make that false claim.
>Just because you were not there doesn't
>mean it did not happen.
There you go again. Just because . . .does't mean it did not happen.
Arguing from absense again, Ray. It is illogical.
Just because they didn't tell you that they were all nude doesn't mean
they all weren't either.
Do YOU believe they were all nude, just because they didn't say they
were not?
I don't. I don't make arguments from absense.
I just point out that the BIBLE does NOT say that the 3,000 ever spoke
in tongues once.
And it does NOT.
>God is not a show off, if such things were common
>it be easy to convert the world to God, wouldn't even need the Holy Ghost
>conviction, just a display of fire on peoples heads and noise so loud
>everyone could hear it, and Wow everyone one would be so full of fear, they
>do what ever the Preacher would say.
Are you saying you DON'T BELIEVE Acts 2 was REALLY what it says?????
Wow! Now we know about you!
No Ray, I will go by what the Bible says:
Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in
one place.
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing
wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing
themselves, and they rested on each one of
them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
with other tongues, as the Spirit was
giving them utterance.
Verse two does NOT sound like it was a "quiet little breeze" sound, or
that "God wasn't a show off."
God made a LOUD NOISE!
God made FLAMES as of FIRE.
REAL, SIGNIFICANT things.
Not little quiet things that nobody noticed.
And YOU might fear.
I just Glorify the GOD OF THE BIBLE, the GOD OF MY LIFE, the MIGHTY
GOD who is not hiding or puny.
Sorry about yours.
Learner
upcsteve
Wow ... someone sure seems a bit edgy about not having the Spirit giving him
utterence. If Jesus wanted to say 'some' believers will speak in tongues,
then He would of said so. Godly influence can equate to a godly lifestyle
like your's, but if you want to a chance like that then go ahead.
Acts 10:45 - And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as
many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 - For they HEARD THEM speak with tongues, and magnify God
They heard them speak with tongues, they didn't observe for years to notice
fruit of the Spirit.
learner
You posted:
<snipped a lot of stuff that had already been commented on>
>> >
>> >A move of the Spirit inspired me to live my life better, and I did for
>> >awhile, but I was NOT baptized with the Spirit yet. When it did happen
>> >-- WOAH. What a difference! My life was anew! It's a promise for you.
>> >Don't let these petty arguments stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost
>> >baptism. It's promised to you.
>> >
>> And it was RECEIVED BY ME almost 30 years ago, and the Holy Spirit has
>> produced FRUIT in my life EVER SINCE. Not just for a while. Not just
>> to "make me feel better about myself," but to mould me more and more
>> into HIS Image. WHAT A DIFFERENCE? Boy! There was no question about
>> it when it happened! But no tongues are required. Just God coming
>> into me!
>>
>> If tongues was the only "evidence" you had, I am sorry for you, but
>> that is not "it."
>>
>> Learner
>>
>
>
>
>Wow ... someone sure seems a bit edgy about not having the Spirit giving him
>utterence.
Not edgy at all! Sorry Steve, but I don't have any concern or bother
about it at all; The Holy Spirit gives the gifts as HE wills. He
hasn't "short-changed" me at all. The gifts HE has given me are
plenty and are EXACTLY what He wants me to have, and I am happy with
them. He uses them regularly
>If Jesus wanted to say 'some' believers will speak in tongues,
>then He would of said so.
He did, through the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 12: 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not
prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are
not workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with
tongues, do they? All do not interpret,
do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still
more excellent way.
It is pretty clearly laid out here. "Some," but NOT ALL believers
speak in tongues.
I am perfectly content with what the Bible says about it. NOT ALL
Christians speak in tongues.
I am a Christian, and I do not. That is fine. Why would I be "edgy?"
>Godly influence can equate to a godly lifestyle
>like your's, but if you want to a chance like that then go ahead.
??? Are you trying to say that my lifestyle is not Godly?
>
>Acts 10:45 - And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as
>many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out
>the gift of the Holy Ghost.
>
>46 - For they HEARD THEM speak with tongues, and magnify God
>
>They heard them speak with tongues, they didn't observe for years to notice
>fruit of the Spirit.
>
True. And it was GENTILES who did it. THAT is why it was so
"different." Tongues are mentioned with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost
only three times in the Bible (this is one of them). In EVERY case it
involves _unbelieving_ JEWS (in this case it is the Jews in the church
who didn't believe that Gentiles could be allowed to join.)
And in EVERY CASE, it is a one-time event (the church only began one
time, that was in Acts 2, Gentiles were only entered into the church
for the first time once [this was the passage], and the only other
time was when John the Baptists disciples had been baptized into
repentence and not into Jesus because Jesus had not yet been crucified
and resurrected. That won't happen again either.
But the "normal" cases, like the 3,000, like the Eunuch, like the
Jailer. . . are NOT said to have spoken in tongues in the Bible. The
text never says one word about it.
1 Corinthians 14:22 says:
22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to
unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign,
not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
Just prior to that passage (to give CONTEXT) it quotes Isaiah speaking
SPECIFICALLY TO JEWS.
Tongues is for a SIGN (v 22) to UNBELIEVING JEWS.
The Bible NEVER says it is for Holy Spirit Baptism. The two things
only happen together three times in the whole Bible, but people
receive the Holy Ghost many more times WITHOUT tongues.
Learner
JOHN sMITH
It is clear that your convinced of your position.
You've already 'learned' all you think you need to.
So why pose as something you are not?
You are posing as someone who supposedly innocently entered into a
conversation with someone about speaking in tongues. Now come on, is that
really how it happened? I doubt it. In fact I question whether the
conversation ever occured.
Oh, you've probably had one or two like it in the past so you're probably
not lying in the strick sense but isn't this whole thing really just a
pretense to start an arguement? You don't really want to learn you just want
to argue.
And if I have the truth, which I do, why should I argue with you?