My 2 cents...
Posted by jjb on 4/30/2006, 5:20 pm, in reply to "Could it be"
131.191.55.80
I believe that the Pentecostal stand that says, 'if you do not speak in tongues you are not filled with the Spirit' is a logical fallacy that is applied to the scriptures in Acts 10.Acts 10 (KJV)
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." 46a "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." This scripture says (paraphrasing), "If they speak in tongues then they are filled with the Holy Spirit". It does not say, "If they are filled with the Holy Spirit then they speak in tongues". You can dig up the names of the logical fallacies that apply to each. When asked to explain the difference between salvation and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, if I don't have time to go through the scriptures I usually just explain it this way. - Our sins separate us from God.
- Jesus died for our sins.
- When we confess our sins and ask forgiveness from God, our sins are imputed to Jesus and are removed from us.
- At that point the separation is gone and the Holy Spirit can come to us.
- However, coming to us is not the same as being in us.
- Jesus stands at the door and knocks, we must open. We must ask, and He will give.
- The Holy Spirit comes into us and we are then capable of speaking in tongues.
- Our tongue is ours to control, not the Holy Spirit's. Without the ability to control it we couldn't sin with it.
- We, then, allow the Holy Spirit to give us the utterance as we yield to Him and speak in tongues.
For some, there is a big gap between being filled and actually yielding the tongue and speaking what we are capable of speaking.This is not the same as not asking and never receiving, but claiming that it happened at salvation. There is no scriptural support for a simultaneous salvation/BHS experience, although there are modern examples. I also would venture to guess that the dogmatic stand that I mentioned at the beginning of this post is the result of a feud between proponents and opponents of tongues that dates back to a century ago. Just like the Trinity / Oneness debate, activists on both side developed extreme positions that clearly excluded the other's views.
|
|
Message Thread:
- Can you be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues? - Traci 4/30/2006, 12:54 am
- Oops! I believe "filled" is the word! - Traci 4/30/2006, 1:04 am
- yes - Steve M 4/30/2006, 6:09 am
- Re: You can be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues. - Theophilus 4/30/2006, 9:41 am
- Sid. - JFJ 4/30/2006, 10:09 am
- I don't know - never tried it nt - Gordy 4/30/2006, 10:08 am
- William B. - JFJ 4/30/2006, 10:22 am
- But I have become frustrated with our old stand on this. - JFJ 4/30/2006, 10:44 am
- I remember - MtG 4/30/2006, 1:12 pm
- Testimony, Testimony,Testimony - JFJ 4/30/2006, 8:22 pm
- Re: Can you be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues? - Bob Sackett 5/2/2006, 9:54 am
- If I was not BHS, I might be dead now! - JFJ 5/2/2006, 12:45 pm
- Re: Can you be Spirit filled and not speak in tongues? - JFJ 5/2/2006, 7:34 pm
- Most certainly... - Tyler 5/3/2006, 3:42 pm
- Spirit Full or Spirit Filled? - Freedom Lover 5/10/2006, 9:14 pm
- Re: Can you be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues? - EDuardo Inojosa 10/3/2007, 3:18 am
- Re: Can you be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues? - SH 6/28/2009, 8:46 am
« Back to thread
|
