Baptism and holy spirit
- Thread starter soberxp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Stunnedbygrace,
I asked the “What do you think speaking in tongues is for?” question because while I was praying about some other things, that question popped up as the single question I should ask you. (I failed in that I couldn’t bring myself to post it verbatim.)
Meanwhile, I went back through some old postings and decided I won’t just throw scriptures back and forth from a heavily defended position. In other words, I’m not willing to shake off the dust of my feet and write you off as though you are just hard-headed and a lost cause.
For similar reasons I didn’t just step in for Waggles and directly answer your query to him. I’ve learned from interactions with others that some direct answers do not bring greater understanding...rather they just bring an end to the conversation. If given a direct answer, without the understanding of WHY, an answer may seem inflamatory, hateful and/or directly contradictory to truth. In other words, I didn’t want to do that and have you wipe off the dust of your feet against ME, and write me off as though I am just hard-headed and a lost cause.
So, in spirit of honest communication, I’ll also volunteer what I mean when I refer to “speaking in tongues” and what I understand it to be for, and how it does or doesn't benefit me in reality, in order that you might understand why I would be so bold as to suggest everyone should have it...and would even say they need to have it. (It just might take more time than I have right now so please grant me some time and grace between posts. Of course, you’re welcome to continue posting...and to send questions my way.)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
I asked the “What do you think speaking in tongues is for?” question because while I was praying about some other things, that question popped up as the single question I should ask you. (I failed in that I couldn’t bring myself to post it verbatim.)
Meanwhile, I went back through some old postings and decided I won’t just throw scriptures back and forth from a heavily defended position. In other words, I’m not willing to shake off the dust of my feet and write you off as though you are just hard-headed and a lost cause.
For similar reasons I didn’t just step in for Waggles and directly answer your query to him. I’ve learned from interactions with others that some direct answers do not bring greater understanding...rather they just bring an end to the conversation. If given a direct answer, without the understanding of WHY, an answer may seem inflamatory, hateful and/or directly contradictory to truth. In other words, I didn’t want to do that and have you wipe off the dust of your feet against ME, and write me off as though I am just hard-headed and a lost cause.
So, in spirit of honest communication, I’ll also volunteer what I mean when I refer to “speaking in tongues” and what I understand it to be for, and how it does or doesn't benefit me in reality, in order that you might understand why I would be so bold as to suggest everyone should have it...and would even say they need to have it. (It just might take more time than I have right now so please grant me some time and grace between posts. Of course, you’re welcome to continue posting...and to send questions my way.)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Are you sure the hardheaded one isn't the person who won't succinctly answer...?
Why would I appear hardheaded or a lost cause for trying to get an answer from someone as to whether they believe one has not received the Holy Spirit if they have never spoken in tongues...?
Are you sure the hardheaded one isn't the person who won't succinctly answer...?
Are you sure the hardheaded one isn't the person who won't succinctly answer...?
That's a fair enough point.
You wouldn't be hard headed for asking. My comment was more to expose my own shortcomings rather than to suggest you to be hardheaded. Specifically: Sometimes I forget past conversations, and that the person I'm speaking with is more than the beliefs they hold. And, I'm not as good as Jesus in answering.
Neither is hardheadedness the only possible reason for a person avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. Two examples:
#1. Jesus' answer when they asked him where he got his authority. He answered question with question and never did give them the direct answer they sought. Partly, I believe, because he recognized the volatility of the direct answer. He was able to perfectly expose the nature of that volatility and knew how to avoid it. (Matthew 21: 23-27) I am not that good. I may recognize the volatility, but not the perfect way to handle it.
#2. When they asked Jesus “Shall we give or shall we not give?. When offered an “A” or “B” question Jesus did the following: diverted, clarified the situation, then created and chose “C”. (Mark 12:13-17)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Last edited:
Stunnedbygrace,
That's a fair enough point.
You wouldn't be hard headed for asking. My comment was more to expose my own shortcomings rather than to suggest you to be hardheaded. Specifically: Sometimes I forget past conversations, and that the person I'm speaking with is more than the beliefs they hold. And, I'm not as good as Jesus in answering.
Neither is hardheadedness the only possible reason for a person avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. Two examples:
#1. Jesus' answer when they asked him where he got his authority. He answered question with question and never did give them the direct answer they sought. Partly, I believe, because he recognized the volatility of the direct answer. He was able to perfectly expose the nature of that volatility and knew how to avoid it. (Matthew 21: 23-27) I am not that good. I may recognize the volatility, but not the perfect way to handle it.
#2. When they asked Jesus “Shall we give or shall we not give?. When offered an “A” or “B” question Jesus did the following: diverted, clarified the situation, then created and chose “C”. (Mark 12:13-17)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
That's a fair enough point.
You wouldn't be hard headed for asking. My comment was more to expose my own shortcomings rather than to suggest you to be hardheaded. Specifically: Sometimes I forget past conversations, and that the person I'm speaking with is more than the beliefs they hold. And, I'm not as good as Jesus in answering.
Neither is hardheadedness the only possible reason for a person avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. Two examples:
#1. Jesus' answer when they asked him where he got his authority. He answered question with question and never did give them the direct answer they sought. Partly, I believe, because he recognized the volatility of the direct answer. He was able to perfectly expose the nature of that volatility and knew how to avoid it. (Matthew 21: 23-27) I am not that good. I may recognize the volatility, but not the perfect way to handle it.
#2. When they asked Jesus “Shall we give or shall we not give?. When offered an “A” or “B” question Jesus did the following: diverted, clarified the situation, then created and chose “C”. (Mark 12:13-17)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Then you came into the conversation. Do you have an answer? Or if not, as in your above examples, is there a "choose C?"
Sorry did I keep you guys waiting?
That's the trouble with the real world it keeps one away from
the keyboard.
YES - both scripture and God tell us that the only given sign of a
convert being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking forth in a new tongue.
A wonderful personal daily prayer spiritual language referred to as praying
in the Holy Spirit.
Thus there is no confusion nor division nor arguing over who has been baptized
in the Holy Spirit and who has not.
Jesus declared it to be such himself.
That's the trouble with the real world it keeps one away from
the keyboard.
YES - both scripture and God tell us that the only given sign of a
convert being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking forth in a new tongue.
A wonderful personal daily prayer spiritual language referred to as praying
in the Holy Spirit.
Thus there is no confusion nor division nor arguing over who has been baptized
in the Holy Spirit and who has not.
Jesus declared it to be such himself.
Stunnedbygrace,
And here is where the navigation gets difficult....because it is easy for me (and you) to see that you believe and are indeed a disciple (like those in Acts 19:1&2. And I hope/pray you are actually getting out your bible to READ this instead of going on memory)
But to show you what is missing WITHOUT casting doubt on what you already have... That's the difficult part.
Those in Acts 19 also believed and were disciples...That's what verses 1 and 2 are showing. But Paul knew that there is more than that. And Paul was asking if they'd received the piece that wasn't mentioned. (and here's where the navigation becomes necessary) THEY hadn't heard of the Holy Ghost...but YOU have. It may have been easy for them to acknowledge that they didn't have it because they hadn't heard of it...and they were soon able to receive it (not at belief, or even baptism, but at the laying on of hands) in verse 6. And as Waggles and I would be sure to point out...it came with speaking in tongues.
Now, almost every group of disciples (that has a bible) has heard of the Holy Ghost. And think about it... Which group will claim they do NOT have the Holy Ghost? (Do you know of any? because I don't)
So, now, if most disciples know there is a Holy Ghost...and all of those will claim to have the Holy Ghost,... how do we discern between claims of having the Holy Ghost and ACTUALLY having the Holy Ghost?
In writing this it dawned on me that those in Acts 19 had another advantage that allowed them to easily receive but perhaps I'll share that at another time. Meanwhile, I'll actually post what I'd written yesterday regarding the relationship of tongues and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, but didn't post it with the "hardheaded" clarification because it wasn't quite complete. (still might not be).
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
And here is where the navigation gets difficult....because it is easy for me (and you) to see that you believe and are indeed a disciple (like those in Acts 19:1&2. And I hope/pray you are actually getting out your bible to READ this instead of going on memory)
But to show you what is missing WITHOUT casting doubt on what you already have... That's the difficult part.
Those in Acts 19 also believed and were disciples...That's what verses 1 and 2 are showing. But Paul knew that there is more than that. And Paul was asking if they'd received the piece that wasn't mentioned. (and here's where the navigation becomes necessary) THEY hadn't heard of the Holy Ghost...but YOU have. It may have been easy for them to acknowledge that they didn't have it because they hadn't heard of it...and they were soon able to receive it (not at belief, or even baptism, but at the laying on of hands) in verse 6. And as Waggles and I would be sure to point out...it came with speaking in tongues.
Now, almost every group of disciples (that has a bible) has heard of the Holy Ghost. And think about it... Which group will claim they do NOT have the Holy Ghost? (Do you know of any? because I don't)
So, now, if most disciples know there is a Holy Ghost...and all of those will claim to have the Holy Ghost,... how do we discern between claims of having the Holy Ghost and ACTUALLY having the Holy Ghost?
In writing this it dawned on me that those in Acts 19 had another advantage that allowed them to easily receive but perhaps I'll share that at another time. Meanwhile, I'll actually post what I'd written yesterday regarding the relationship of tongues and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, but didn't post it with the "hardheaded" clarification because it wasn't quite complete. (still might not be).
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Stunnedbygrace, and All,
Concerning the use of "speaking in tongues" as an indicator of a person(s) having received (or not received) the Holy Ghost…
The answer is that Speaking in tongues was an immediate and observable indicator of the person(s) having received the Holy Ghost in 3 out of 4 of the biblical accounts ( Acts 2:4, Acts 10:45&46, Acts 19:6)
The 4th biblical account (Acts 8:12-18) shows a LACK of receiving the Holy Ghost through verse 16...even though all other criteria were met… and a clear moment of receiving the Holy ghost (verse 17) which again included an immediate and observable indicator as proven by verse 18.
I would say that “speaking in tongues” was and is that immediate and observable indicator. And, like the church in Jerusalem, i won’t declare a person to have received the Holy Ghost until it is obvious that the person(s) have received it.
People who claim "that's not the indicator" will have to explain what other indicator was present that was immediately observable to those around (like Simon in Acts 8:18 and those that came with Peter in Acts 10:45) if it wasn't speaking in tongues. That will be pretty difficult considering Acts 10:46 clarifies that speaking in tongues was indeed the indicator used by those that came with Peter.
It's not a matter of contention. I just want people to have what is available to them, and I know it will be difficult for some because to think it possible is to admit we may have been grossly deceived in some areas...which makes us feel dangerously vulnerable. But that's why God has his hand on things. He can protect us and deliver us from our vulnerability, but he can't make us see something we refuse.
John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Concerning the use of "speaking in tongues" as an indicator of a person(s) having received (or not received) the Holy Ghost…
The answer is that Speaking in tongues was an immediate and observable indicator of the person(s) having received the Holy Ghost in 3 out of 4 of the biblical accounts ( Acts 2:4, Acts 10:45&46, Acts 19:6)
The 4th biblical account (Acts 8:12-18) shows a LACK of receiving the Holy Ghost through verse 16...even though all other criteria were met… and a clear moment of receiving the Holy ghost (verse 17) which again included an immediate and observable indicator as proven by verse 18.
I would say that “speaking in tongues” was and is that immediate and observable indicator. And, like the church in Jerusalem, i won’t declare a person to have received the Holy Ghost until it is obvious that the person(s) have received it.
People who claim "that's not the indicator" will have to explain what other indicator was present that was immediately observable to those around (like Simon in Acts 8:18 and those that came with Peter in Acts 10:45) if it wasn't speaking in tongues. That will be pretty difficult considering Acts 10:46 clarifies that speaking in tongues was indeed the indicator used by those that came with Peter.
It's not a matter of contention. I just want people to have what is available to them, and I know it will be difficult for some because to think it possible is to admit we may have been grossly deceived in some areas...which makes us feel dangerously vulnerable. But that's why God has his hand on things. He can protect us and deliver us from our vulnerability, but he can't make us see something we refuse.
John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Last edited:
You won't declare a person as having received the Spirit until and unless they speak in tongue? but by your own admission it can be faked through pressure. So you would declare a faking person saved and a possibly saved person as unsaved, thereby encouraging someone you shouldn't and discouraging someone you shouldnt.
Stunned,
Yes. Keep checking the fruits. But that is far from the immediacy of evidence described in Acts.
And if you think tongues/no tongues is difficult to sort...what happens on those days that you yourself are not behaving very spiritually? Are we to conclude that you do or do not have the Holy Ghost based on weaknesses you have yet to overcome?
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Yes. Keep checking the fruits. But that is far from the immediacy of evidence described in Acts.
And if you think tongues/no tongues is difficult to sort...what happens on those days that you yourself are not behaving very spiritually? Are we to conclude that you do or do not have the Holy Ghost based on weaknesses you have yet to overcome?
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
What? Am I perfect ahead of you? I never have an outburst of temper or the pride of hurt feelings?
If a church got to know me, they could see if I was fairly consistent in fruit. But if you declared me saved based on tongues, I may be faking it and you have not helped me but rather harmed me. And if I then left and didn't come back, you have not helped me but harmed me.
If a church got to know me, they could see if I was fairly consistent in fruit. But if you declared me saved based on tongues, I may be faking it and you have not helped me but rather harmed me. And if I then left and didn't come back, you have not helped me but harmed me.
Stunnedbygrace,
I did not say that his tongues was faked. He thinks it was because he could choose what syllables to allow, and could remember what they were (to tell us). I said I wasn't going to declare what he did as real or not (at least not at that time). And I said I have distaste for some of the high pressure situations churches might ungodly put upon people but I also advised careful discernment to separate what the church was doing WRONG while God was trying to do RIGHT.
And I said I'd HEARD OF fake tongues...but not knowingly witnessed it.
I did not say that his tongues was faked. He thinks it was because he could choose what syllables to allow, and could remember what they were (to tell us). I said I wasn't going to declare what he did as real or not (at least not at that time). And I said I have distaste for some of the high pressure situations churches might ungodly put upon people but I also advised careful discernment to separate what the church was doing WRONG while God was trying to do RIGHT.
And I said I'd HEARD OF fake tongues...but not knowingly witnessed it.