Born Again Speaking in Tongues

[Wansvic]

Repentance and belief/faith in Jesus (which results in receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit) are components required for salvation (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..)

I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your biased church doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me to see how everything that I explain to you in my posts just continues to go right over your head.

Your explanations do not lineup with what I see in the word. It is as simple as that. No disrespect intended.

 

[Wansvic]

Repentance and belief/faith in Jesus (which results in receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit) are components required for salvation (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 etc..)

I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your biased church doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me to see how everything that I explain to you in my posts just continues to go right over your head.

As mentioned in another post I accept what I see in the biblical record. An example: Paul's question to the Ephesus disciples in Acts 19, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" speaks of a truth. Paul would not have asked this question if the Holy Ghost is immediately received when one repents and believes in Jesus.

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. Acts 19:2

 

[garee]

Your explanations do not lineup with what I see in the word. It is as simple as that. No disrespect intended.

It would seem your explanation does not line up with line upon line comparing the word of God's prophecy to the same words of prophecy. You must be serving another foundation other than the one that God's confirms as a law. What is the foundation of your explanation?

Isaiah 28:9-11 King James Version (KJV)Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering (mocking deriding.. not sounds without meaning) lips and another tongue(languages with meanings attached ) will he speak to this people.

 

[mailmandan]

As mentioned in another post I accept what I see in the biblical record. An example: Paul's question to the Ephesus disciples in Acts 19, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" speaks of a truth. Paul would not have asked this question if the Holy Ghost is immediately received when one repents and believes in Jesus.

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. Acts 19:2

You only accept what you want to see. Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed (assuming they believed) yet their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10, so this does not conform to your biased church doctrine. It signified their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church.

The key is that they had not yet believed in Christ. They did not know about Jesus’ saving work or about the Holy Spirit until they met Paul. A careful reading of Acts 19 reveals these facts. They were “disciples”, but not of Christ. Rather, they were self-identified disciples of John the Baptist. They were not believers in the risen Lord Jesus Christ and Paul’s question about their conversion experience reveals they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (verse 2).

 

[Wansvic]

You only accept what you want to see. Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed (assuming they believed) yet their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10, so this does not conform to your biased church doctrine. It signified their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church.

The key is that they had not yet believed in Christ. They did not know about Jesus’ saving work or about the Holy Spirit until they met Paul. A careful reading of Acts 19 reveals these facts. They were “disciples”, but not of Christ. Rather, they were self-identified disciples of John the Baptist. They were not believers in the risen Lord Jesus Christ and Paul’s question about their conversion experience reveals they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (verse 2).

Assuming they believed is irrelevant. You are missing the obvious: Paul's question shows with certainty that one does not always receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believe.

in addition this is one of many scriptures pointing to the fact that water baptism is supposed to be done in Jesus' name.

 

[StephanieMM]

Ravi Zacharias said, “information to a person who loves the truth not is just ammunition.” I guess, this is why Jesus remained silent most of the time He was being judged, whipped and crucified.

 

[mailmandan]

Assuming they believed is irrelevant. You are missing the obvious: Paul's question shows with certainty that one does not always receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believe.

in addition this is one of many scriptures pointing to the fact that water baptism is supposed to be done in Jesus' name.

The fact that they did not truly believe is certainly not irrelevant. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy spirit is also the exception, not the rule. It’s you who is missing the obvious.

The phrase, "in Jesus name, in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Jesus Himself specifically tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

 

[Wansvic]

You only accept what you want to see. Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed (assuming they believed) yet their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10, so this does not conform to your biased church doctrine. It signified their inclusion into the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. God's purpose was to emphasize unity in the church.

The key is that they had not yet believed in Christ. They did not know about Jesus’ saving work or about the Holy Spirit until they met Paul. A careful reading of Acts 19 reveals these facts. They were “disciples”, but not of Christ. Rather, they were self-identified disciples of John the Baptist. They were not believers in the risen Lord Jesus Christ and Paul’s question about their conversion experience reveals they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (verse 2).

Another piece of information to glean from the record in Acts Chapter 19 is that individuals are well aware if they have received the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, Paul would not have asked the question. If the infilling of the Holy Ghost is not evidenced by speaking in tongues how is one sure they received it?


He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:2-6

 

[Wansvic]

The fact that they did not truly believe is certainly not irrelevant. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy spirit is also the exception, not the rule. It’s you who is missing the obvious.

The phrase, "in Jesus name, in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Jesus Himself specifically tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

I refuse to follow you down the rabbit trail.

The belief of those present in the scripture is not relevant to the point I am making:

As stated Paul would not have asked if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed if the Holy Ghost is immediately received upon belief.

 

[wolfwint]

Australia the "Land Of The Holy Spirit"
we export biblical Pentecostal revival around the world - Acts 2:38 in action worldwide.

You know when the first person in australia was baptised with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues?
I wonder that before this person no one was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wansvic]

The fact that they did not truly believe is certainly not irrelevant. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy spirit is also the exception, not the rule. It’s you who is missing the obvious.

The phrase, "in Jesus name, in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Jesus Himself specifically tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

The bible record is clear that one can receive the infilling of the Holy Ghost spontaneously, or by the laying on of hands by those filled with the Spirit already. If one has not already received the Holy Ghost all they need to do is ask God for it. (Luke 11:13)

 

[Wansvic]

The fact that they did not truly believe is certainly not irrelevant. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy spirit is also the exception, not the rule. It’s you who is missing the obvious.

The phrase, "in Jesus name, in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Jesus Himself specifically tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

What is the name?
The disciples consistently water baptized in the name of Jesus. Evidently they understood what Jesus meant. Throughout scripture the name of Jesus is connected to water baptism.

 

[Waggles]

I googled The Revival Fellowship and Australia and a very disturbing (to say the least) article immediately came up! -

There are dozens of internet search results for The Revival Fellowship both here in Australia and dozens more for the many
assemblies overseas throughout the world.
And yet you can only post up one rude offensive webpage by an obvious backslider who has left the faith and returned to the world.
Posted by: Galakiah ()
Date: March 10, 2003 10:02PM
So Mr Postman, who is Galakiah? What credibility does this person have? I doubt that they were ever a member of these four
Pentecostal churches; so how would Galakiah know what goes on in these churches.

Recently in the U.S. is there not a huge unfolding child molesting paedophilia scandal going on in your Southern Baptist Churches.
Not only on the internet but even our local news is covering this shame.
How about you Americans talk openly and honestly about your sins, rather than cast aspersions on others.

 

[Waggles]

This has been throroughy proven to be not true, because many true believers have died by these things.

A totally false and bogus claim by unbelievers and those who know nothing.
Please document the cases of the many true believers who have died through such.

 

[fredoheaven]

The fact that they did not truly believe is certainly not irrelevant. The laying on of hands to receive the Holy spirit is also the exception, not the rule. It’s you who is missing the obvious.

The phrase, "in Jesus name, in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. Jesus Himself specifically tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

Yap, very true, "in the name of Jesus Christ" refers to authority. It is like a policeman saying "in the name of the law"

 

[jaybird88]

He gave a class or 2 about walking on water. were you paying attention?

listen:

Jesus had to return to the Father so the Holy Spirit, also present all through the OT, could descend and fill those who ALREADY believed and endow them with gifts from God Himself

Jesus did many things we do not do. if you run out of food at a dinner, I suppose you just take up something and multiply it?

wait...no you don't? so you are not a Christian then I guess

that is the flip side of what you are saying

the gospel as we know and experience it was not exactly preached by Jesus either.

so should we stop preaching it?

people seem incapable of freedom of thought around here when they are close minded to the FULL gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

didnt Peter walk on the water with Jesus.

the flip side of this is the idea of taking one hot dog and making it into six hot dogs is to overwhelming for the Holy Spirit. IMO one can move mountains if their faith is great enough.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

didnt Peter walk on the water with Jesus.

the flip side of this is the idea of taking one hot dog and making it into six hot dogs is to overwhelming for the Holy Spirit. IMO one can move mountains if their faith is great enough.

do you consider this an intelligent biblical response?

it certainly has nothing of import in regards to a response

just another time waster who does not believe certain things and does not want anyone else to disagree because it upsets their tiny world

Peter sank when he took his eyes off Christ

 

[jaybird88]

do you consider this an intelligent biblical response?

it certainly has nothing of import in regards to a response

just another time waster who does not believe certain things and does not want anyone else to disagree because it upsets their tiny world

Peter sank when he took his eyes off Christ

im not upset, if i were i would be giving smart mouth responses like you are, sorry that i hit a nerve but dont you think the Spirit might be capable of making one hot dog into two?
if someone claims they have the Spirit, i want to see the actions of the Spirit at work, without that its nothing but empty words. i can say im king of the planet all day long, that doesnt mean i am.
before Peter sank he was walking on water, which is exactly what we are told no one can do but Jesus.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

im not upset, if i were i would be giving smart mouth responses like you are, sorry that i hit a nerve but dont you think the Spirit might be capable of making one hot dog into two?
if someone claims they have the Spirit, i want to see the actions of the Spirit at work, without that its nothing but empty words. i can say im king of the planet all day long, that doesnt mean i am.
before Peter sank he was walking on water, which is exactly what we are told no one can do but Jesus.

huh

you appear to think you have the gift of mind reading

and the one that goes with it...false accusation

that talent usually appears when someone is frustrated because they thought they were being smart

but then they find out they were not

being smart

I refer to your hahaha so funny hot dog analogy

moving on cause nothing notable to answer here

 

[eternally-gratefull]

A totally false and bogus claim by unbelievers and those who know nothing.
Please document the cases of the many true believers who have died through such.

Your telling me in the last 2000 years that people have not died drinking poison or missionaries out getting but by snakes and have lived?

You show me all the news flashes of the miracles which have happened on so many occasions?