[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] Evidence of the Holy Spirit

ToBeLoved said:

Would you read what you just wrote?

You obviously do not understand what takes place when one is born again and made one of Christ's own.

This is MOST DEFINITELY legalism and I'm not sure that you even understand what legalism truly means.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is our guarantee of salvation and part of our inheritance as children of Christ. That would be basing salvation on obedience which according to the Word and the apostle Paul is a false gospel.

What scripture do you have to support that? (scripture that says that exactly) That our being given the Holy Spirit is predicated on obedience?

Also, how come nobody else is questioning this teaching.

Gid's, we've had our differences but you know I love you brother. You really need to prayerfully and with an open heart and mind let the Holy Spirit lead you to truth in this area. I know that you love the Lord. I know that you only want to speak His truth, but you are wrong on this teaching. It is not biblical, brother.

Click to expand...

May I ask you something? On the day of judgment, when the sheep are separated from the goats, who were these people who were rejected? It is those who chose to not obey the Lord. They were religious, went to church cast out demons, but they simply had never yielded themselves fully and bowed the knee to Jesus as Lord as well as savior.

Of course we are not earning salvation by obedience. Obedience in the new covenant is a fruit of abiding, a sign that all is well in our relationship with Christ. If we are doing our own thing, and our lives are devoid of the fruits of the Spirit, are we walking in the Spirit? The answer is no, even if we are speaking in tongues more than all.

Jesus said "You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you."

So, are we His friends, based upon our obedience or at least our earnest desire to obey Him in all things? Or are we ultimately to find out too late that hating our life, denying self, is our part of the covenant. It has nothing to do with strength but with the desire of our heart. Is obedience appealing to us or do we like to magnify a grace that says it is quite alright to not obey, or even want to.

The answer we get will tell us a lot.

Blessings,

Gids

razzelflabben said:

Let me see if I can think up another way to ask the same question...thinking...thinking....okay, I don't know if this is a different way of saying it or not, but here goes yet again....if II Tim. is referring to those people who commit a sin then repent of it rather than those that refuse to repent and live as if they never knew that obedience was part of the believers life, then why does scripture tell us to avoid these people? Wouldn't the instruction to avoid them, be God saying, they are doing more than just committing a random sin and repenting of it, righting themselves with me, because repentance and forgiveness is part of the power of the HS within, isn't it? So your assertion that II Tim. is referring to those that commit a random sin then repent of it and continue living in the power of the indwelling HS seems a bit misplaced given what the passage tells us....so, another way to word it, how is II Tim. consistent with those that you claim commit a random, occasional sin then repent of that sin and go on into a deeper walk with the Lord? I don't know, at this point I am out of ways to ask the same question especially since you haven't even attempted to answer it thus far.

Click to expand...

I will try to answer a different way.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
"But know this: Difficult times will come in the last days. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, 4 traitors, reckless, conceited,lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!"

I agree that we should avoid these people that are habitual and unrepentant sinners. My point was not that we should not avoid these people as the verse says, my point was that we need to be careful that these are truly the type of Christians who have gone so far away from God and have no desire to come back.

What 'could' happen is (and this is not directed towards you, but Christians in general) that we see back slidden Christians (who I view as different from Christians who have turned their back to God in rebellion) that might need our help figuring out how to get back to the faith.

So in essence, I would not want to see mature Christians turn their back on weaker Christians if they are not rebellious against God. People sin a lot when their faith is weak, but weak faith is different (in my point of view) from a rebellious spirit who doesn't want anything to do with God.

Does that make more sense?

razzelflabben said:

first, all the fruit would be present not just some of it and it would be growing. Second, one of the main ways to tell the HS is obedience to God. So if the person is without sin, or is growing into this sinlessness, there is evidence of the indwelling HS.

Click to expand...

This can work maybe weeks, months or even years after our conversion/initiation experience but it really cannot be used as a litmus test for a new Believer who is still in their first few days of the Christian walk.

I was actually quite excited to see this thread because this is something God has been talking to me about of late. In fact, our guarantee of salvation according to scripture is the evidence of the indwelling HS. The primary evidence of which is obedience to the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Click to expand...

I agree, it can be a fascinating discussion.

A few days back I mentioned in another post that I have never been all that comfortable with the theology behind redemption and justification, where I did not know if this was due to the manner in which it has been traditionally taught or maybe that I simply didn’t have the where-with-all to figure it all out.

A little while back I purchased Macchia’s book titled Baptized in the Spirit (2006) and a couple of weeks back I obtained a subsequent book of his titled Justified in the Spirit (2010); both of these very technical books which he says were written for fellow scholars has assembled an incredible amount of material which not only addresses how we are to define the reception of the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion/initiation, but where his second book addresses how we are justified before God. So now I can finally say that my ego has now been placated where I can finally say that I have a far stronger understanding with justification where I have now moved from the older Protestant view of Justification by faith to Justified in the Spirit by faith.

. . . The problem I have with this is two fold. 1. this is when the HS first came upon the believers after Christ's resurrection. IOWs they were just beginning to learn what it was all about to have the HS make His home within us. That doesn't sound like the best way to know what God wants us to know about that indwelling HS. 2. Throughout scripture we are told about the HS and what He does in our lives. Not a single one of those passages points out that the primary evidence of the HS is tongues, in fact, there are places in scripture that suggest that speaking in tongues is not for every believer and that that is okay. So to try to make it an issue of tongues or other showy gifts, removes so much of the teaching of scripture about the HS, that I personally have some real trouble with it.

Click to expand...

You surprised me with the portion of your post that I’ve place in bold as the very material that you replied in fact demonstrated that Peter, the Jerusalem Council and the Apostles acknowledged that tongues was the single undeniable evidence they needed whereby they could recognise without any doubt that the Holy Spirit had indeed fallen on the Romans.

Craig C. Keener’s four volume work on Acts (2012) has been very useful on this point. Keener is certainly not a Pentecostal where at this point of time, until I read a bit more about him, I’m not all that sure that he is even a charismatic but his commentary where he acknowledges that Luke does equate tongues with this reception of the Holy Spirit has been useful. One of the quirks with Keener’s material is that he appears to hold to the early primitive Pentecostal view that tongues could be used for ‘cross-cultural evangelism’ where he apparently is suggesting tongues can also be used to present the Gospel – which is definitely quirky and something that I would not expect a scholar to say. If you wish, you can jump to p.833 where he sums up his position that tongues is indeed a primary indicator of the reception of the Holy Spirit.

The overall thrust of your point is probably best addressed within the framework of both the suggested Lukan and Pauline material regarding the Holy Spirit but that can be done at a later time.

p.827

p.828


p.830

Gideons300 said:

May I ask you something? On the day of judgment, when the sheep are separated from the goats, who were these people who were rejected?

Click to expand...

I believe that Jesus is talking about the people that were not spiritual at all (for example, did not pray, worship or really think about God except for once a year on Easter. That think that because they grew up going to ABC church with their parents and by default they are Christians) The ones who never strived at all for any type of relationship or interaction at all with God. I believe that many of these people will not have ever thought that they needed a savior and took the entire idea of faith for granted.

ToBeLoved said:

I like passionate people. If we cannot be passionate about our God then what in this world is worth being passionate for.

Click to expand...

amen and thanks for being a sibling in Christ.

Biblicist2 said:

This can work maybe weeks, months or even years after our conversion/initiation experience but it really cannot be used as a litmus test for a new Believer who is still in their first few days of the Christian walk.

Click to expand...

why not? Most of the true believers I know, those that stand the test of time that is, have shown fruit of the Spirit from the moment of believe on, of course it grows, but the fruit is there none the less, from the moment of spiritual birth to the moment of physical death. I have witnessed it many times over, since scripture says it is and I have seen it repeatedly, why would I doubt, why should I doubt.

I agree, it can be a fascinating discussion.

A few days back I mentioned in another post that I have never been all that comfortable with the theology behind redemption and justification, where I did not know if this was due to the manner in which it has been traditionally taught or maybe that I simply didn’t have the where-with-all to figure it all out.

A little while back I purchased Macchia’s book titled Baptized in the Spirit (2006) and a couple of weeks back I obtained a subsequent book of his titled Justified in the Spirit (2010); both of these very technical books which he says were written for fellow scholars has assembled an incredible amount of material which not only addresses how we are to define the reception of the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion/initiation, but where his second book addresses how we are justified before God. So now I can finally say that my ego has now been placated where I can finally say that I have a far stronger understanding with justification where I have now moved from the older Protestant view of Justification by faith to Justified in the Spirit by faith.



You surprised me with the portion of your post that I’ve place in bold as the very material that you replied in fact demonstrated that Peter, the Jerusalem Council and the Apostles acknowledged that tongues was the single undeniable evidence they needed whereby they could recognise without any doubt that the Holy Spirit had indeed fallen on the Romans.

Click to expand...

an evidence, sure, not arguing that, primary evidence, no that is not what the text is saying. In fact, the text is talking about something very new in which the only evidence they had was tongues. As time went on, more evidence was provided and that growing evidence changed the way the indwelling HS came to men.

Craig C. Keener’s four volume work on Acts (2012) has been very useful on this point. Keener is certainly not a Pentecostal where at this point of time, until I read a bit more about him, I’m not all that sure that he is even a charismatic but his commentary where he acknowledges that Luke does equate tongues with this reception of the Holy Spirit has been useful. One of the quirks with Keener’s material is that he appears to hold to the early primitive Pentecostal view that tongues could be used for ‘cross-cultural evangelism’ where he apparently is suggesting tongues can also be used to present the Gospel – which is definitely quirky and something that I would not expect a scholar to say. If you wish, you can jump to p.833 where he sums up his position that tongues is indeed a primary indicator of the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

now, let's look at the "presenting the gospel" aspect...if I never am in a situation where my lang. is not understood, where would the need for the gift of this kind of tongues be? If no need, then wouldn't it confuse the hearer for me to ramble on in an unknown tongue? Now, that is only one version of speaking in tongues, but the one on the table at this moment in time. So, if I am never in a situation where I need the gift of tongues, how would that gift be the primary evidence of the HS in my life? It wouldn't, however a gift that allowed me to say teach people who never heard, would be. In this case it is all about need. I am of the opinion that the living God gifts according to need not whim. Again, just to be clear, we are only at this point talking about the tongues of the first account in scripture where different lang. were present and it was necessary for understanding the teaching to speak in tongues. Other discussions can follow as appropriate, don't confuse what I am saying about one with another. In fact, interpreters are talked about, but again, that one is a different matter as well because it is not for talking to someone of a different lang.

The overall thrust of your point is probably best addressed within the framework of both the suggested Lukan and Pauline material regarding the Holy Spirit but that can be done at a later time.

p.827

“Both the early classical Pentecostals and their modern scholars who associate tongues with Spirit baptism observed a genuine feature of Luke’s story. Robert Menzies; for example; accurately notes that Luke closely connects tongues with "inspired speech; of which tongues speech is a prominent form; possessing a unique evidential character.”

The observation of this connection is hardly limited to Pentecostals. James D. G. Dunn; who is known for challenging classical Pentecostalism by identifying Spirit baptism with conversion-initiation rather than with a subsequent experience; has noted; "It is undoubtedly true that Luke regarded the glossolalia of Pentecost as an external sign of the Spirits outpouring.” Luke used tongues the same way in 10:45-46 and 19:6; and Dunn thinks that; most likely; tongues occurred in 8:17; though it is not mentioned. (I allow the opposite argument in 8:17; at least regarding what information was available to Luke. But in both cases we admittedly argue from silence; lacking sufficient concrete evidence for a more explicit judgment.) Since these passages exhaust the "initial” fillings that are described in Acts (9:17 predicts but does not describe Pauls); Dunn recognizes that the case "that Luke intended to portray speaking in tongues’ as ‘the initial physical evidence’ of the outpouring of the Spirit” makes far more sense than most scholars have noticed.

Yet Dunn nevertheless demurs from the classical Pentecostal conclusion: Luke’s intention is to demonstrate the Spirit’s presence through tongues; not to "teach” that tongues will always accompany the Spirit (Luke does; after all; omit its mention in 8:17). Most interpreters here agree with Dunn’s conclusion; based on the very limited evidence we have in Acts: Luke regarded tongues as one verbally inspired manifestation of the prophetic Spirit among several; along with praise (2:11; 10:46); prophecy (19:6; cf. 2:17-18); and boldness (4:8; 31)”.​

Click to expand...

p.828

“Yet Dunn nevertheless demurs from the classical Pentecostal conclusion: Luke’s intention is to demonstrate the Spirit’s presence through tongues, not to "teach” that tongues will always accompany the Spirit (Luke does, after all, omit its mention in 8:17). Most interpreters here agree with Dunn’s conclusion, based on the very limited evidence we have in Acts: Luke regarded tongues as one verbally inspired manifestation of the prophetic Spirit among several, along with praise (2:11; 10:46), prophecy (19:6; cf. 2:17-18), and boldness (4:8, 3l). Such expressions underline the prophetic character of the empowerment. Likewise, as noted further below, tongues speech evidences the experience of baptism in the Spirit (i.e., reveals its purpose and function), not the individual recipients of this baptism; it thus need not occur on every occasion to maintain its symbolic function”.​

Click to expand...

p.830

"Thus I would argue that Luke does in fact use tongues as evidence of baptism in the Spirit and in one sense would argue this more strongly than most traditional Pentecostals: tongues is not an arbitrary evidence but is highlighted because it is intrinsically related to the point of what Luke means by baptism in the Spirit. In this case, reception history draws our attention to an important feature of Lukes narrative pattern that we might easily have missed. At the same time, we need not go as far as traditional Pentecostals in believing that Luke expected tongues on every occasion when a person was initially filled with the Spirit, even given Lukes emphasis. Tongues is a sign that attests the nature of the experience, not necessarily an exclusive, mandatory sign of every individuals reception of that experience".​

Click to expand...

yep, fair enough conclusion I would say without reading the whole work

ToBeLoved said:

I will try to answer a different way.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
"But know this: Difficult times will come in the last days. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, 4 traitors, reckless, conceited,lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!"

I agree that we should avoid these people that are habitual and unrepentant sinners. My point was not that we should not avoid these people as the verse says, my point was that we need to be careful that these are truly the type of Christians who have gone so far away from God and have no desire to come back.

Click to expand...

and as to your point of contention with my post that started this whole thing, there could be little room for question in the group I was speaking of that were accidently tested.

What 'could' happen is (and this is not directed towards you, but Christians in general) that we see back slidden Christians (who I view as different from Christians who have turned their back to God in rebellion) that might need our help figuring out how to get back to the faith.

So in essence, I would not want to see mature Christians turn their back on weaker Christians if they are not rebellious against God. People sin a lot when their faith is weak, but weak faith is different (in my point of view) from a rebellious spirit who doesn't want anything to do with God.

Does that make more sense?

Click to expand...

it makes total sense and we agree, but this whole thing came up because you challenged my unintentional experiment in which evidence of the fruit of the HS was not only identified by the youth, but evidenced in the behavior of the church as confirmation of them getting it right. So if you challenge that story, then you have to stay focused on the answer, not go off on some other path. Does that make sense to you now? As I pointed out, the people in question, fit most all of the things that were listed and 2 years down the road are still unrepentant. Now some in the situation were as you mention, sinning only to repent and get right with God, this is evidence of the power of the HS, but as per the illustration which you challenged, there are many that have to this day not only refused to repent but continue to live in those sins as if they don't see them as sins.

razzelflabben said:

and as to your point of contention with my post that started this whole thing, there could be little room for question in the group I was speaking of that were accidently tested. it makes total sense and we agree, but this whole thing came up because you challenged my unintentional experiment in which evidence of the fruit of the HS was not only identified by the youth, but evidenced in the behavior of the church as confirmation of them getting it right. So if you challenge that story, then you have to stay focused on the answer, not go off on some other path. Does that make sense to you now? As I pointed out, the people in question, fit most all of the things that were listed and 2 years down the road are still unrepentant. Now some in the situation were as you mention, sinning only to repent and get right with God, this is evidence of the power of the HS, but as per the illustration which you challenged, there are many that have to this day not only refused to repent but continue to live in those sins as if they don't see them as sins.

Click to expand...

I think another thing that may affect my perspective being different is because I live in a fairly large city so I do not see people from my church every day or really at all outside of church. It is considered a coincidence to run into someone that I know, rather than something I expect to happen daily or often. This may or may not affect the way I was looking at the situation, I'm not sure.

Alithis said:

a fruit is the product of a tree
but how does one know the wind is blowing upon the tree ?

Click to expand...

What is the evidence of the initial baptism of the holy Spirit?
It is not fruit, fruit comes in due season and it is a product of the tree .it shows what tree the branch is rooted in.

Reverse the question in regard to an evil spirit..and i never hear ant one debate the issue.. When an evil spirit enters a person ..the manifestations are simple.they curse swear and blaspheme .they speak from the abundance of the heart..for " from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"..
The lord said ut of "your"belly shall flow rivers of LIVING water.that which ghe heart is filled with will flow out the mouth.

Thus the evidence of an evil spirit is among other things a verbal evidence of curse and blasphemy...and in contrast the evidence of the holy spirit is. PRaise and thanks honouring God and the Lord Jesus(Not honouring the spirit as he doesnt honour himself) this overflowing of praise is what the intitiall outburst of tongues is.
Not all go on to move in the manifestation of tongues but of other expressions and movings of the holy spirit. In dreams visions words of knowledge wisdom interpretations healings etc,but all by the same spirit.

ToBeLoved said:

I think another thing that may affect my perspective being different is because I live in a fairly large city so I do not see people from my church every day or really at all outside of church. It is considered a coincidence to run into someone that I know, rather than something I expect to happen daily or often. This may or may not affect the way I was looking at the situation, I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

actually, I almost suggested that you live in a large city if you never see people from your church but on Sun. Morning. Our church is in a small community and we live outside that community and we still see and/or talk to people on a regular basis. In fact, scripture tells us to encourage one another daily. We can't do that if we separate ourselves from them. In the particular case I was referring to, in addition to S morning and community meetings as in shopping, school, running into each other, etc. There were lots of phone calls to various people, meetings out the bum, etc. Giving a lot of opportunity to know the real people. It is very difficult to hide the real you in a small community. But I think I already pointed out all that opportunities there were to know more than just S. morning and on top of that, not only were we worshiping every S morning with these people for 6 years or more, but, some of them were in higher leadership, making their lives (for good or bad) more public to start out with.

Alithis said:

What is the evidence of the initial baptism of the holy Spirit?
It is not fruit, fruit comes in due season and it is a product of the tree .it shows what tree the branch is rooted in.

Reverse the question in regard to an evil spirit..and i never hear ant one debate the issue.. When an evil spirit enters a person ..the manifestations are simple.they curse swear and blaspheme .they speak from the abundance of the heart..for " from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"..
The lord said ut of "your"belly shall flow rivers of LIVING water.that which ghe heart is filled with will flow out the mouth.

Thus the evidence of an evil spirit is among other things a verbal evidence of curse and blasphemy...and in contrast the evidence of the holy spirit is. PRaise and thanks honouring God and the Lord Jesus(Not honouring the spirit as he doesnt honour himself) this overflowing of praise is what the intitiall outburst of tongues is.
Not all go on to move in the manifestation of tongues but of other expressions and movings of the holy spirit. In dreams visions words of knowledge wisdom interpretations healings etc,but all by the same spirit.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting way of looking at the question....so what would be the primary evidence of an evil spirit if we were to apply the same logic to that that we do to the HS? Would it be super human power like the man in the tombs, or throwing ones self in the fire like the child who was demon possessed. NOt talking here about evidence like you list above, but taking the concept one step further. If we look at both sides the same way, so as to say that the primary evidence of the HS is tongues, then wouldn't we also have to say that the primary evidence of demonic possession is either super strength or throwing ones self to the ground? Yet I have known people possessed that did neither. Hum...something to think about today, thanks.

razzelflabben said:

why not? Most of the true believers I know, those that stand the test of time that is, have shown fruit of the Spirit from the moment of believe on, of course it grows, but the fruit is there none the less, from the moment of spiritual birth to the moment of physical death. I have witnessed it many times over, since scripture says it is and I have seen it repeatedly, why would I doubt, why should I doubt.

Click to expand...

As you say “with the test of time”; we hopefully should all be able to point to those saints who having been in the Lord for many decades have demonstrated by their walk in the Lord that they indeed have the Spirit of God within them.

But does this really address the problem? As I mentioned previously, how long must we wait before we can confidently measure someone’s salvation by their fruit, would it need to be days, week, months or years? For many people who have been raised in relatively good unsaved homes, their daily walk as unbelievers can be almost indistinguishable from those who are in the Lord. There are certainly those whose salvation can be more than dramatic where their confession of faith can force any demons who are within them to come to the forefront which often requires some serious intervention by those who are present.

As there are those whose lives are visibly dramatically changed, from what we can tell about the unregenerated Roman centurion and probably at least with his family, as he was held in high esteem by the Jews of his day, then his daily walk would probably be almost indistinguishable from that of many of our contemporary Regenerated cessationist/Evangelical brethren.

Over the decades, whenever I’ve come across church leaders (or anyone else for that matter) who are talking about the numbers who responded to a call to repentance and salvation, the reference point that they use is with the individuals confession and not with their fruit. Even Luke, he never connects anyone’s salvation with any observable fruit but with their reception of the Holy Spirit and on three occasions he points to them speaking in tongues as the unarguable marker of their conversion/initiation and on the fourth, even though he does not directly refer to tongues, it is certainly implied within the text. The exception to this is when someone is going through a time of deliverance from demonic possession/oppression as a result of their conversion experience, where this type of conversion always generates a bit of discussion; but in most part, they are the exception.

Lukes emphasis with the reception of the Holy Spirit is closely connected with the evidence of speaking in tongues, where his historical record of the early Church and with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has given rise to the speculative descriptor of Lukan theology, which some incorrectly see as being in contrast to Pauls theology. As Lukes historical record closely links the reception of the Holy Spirit with tongues as the evidence of this reception, the realm of ‘Lukan’ theology has become the final point of defence for the old classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence, where they believe that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to the Believer first being sealed in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion/initiation.

As we discussed further back in this thread, theologians now more readily acknowledge that Luke connects the reception of the Holy Spirit with tongues, though many will recognise that this would not be the only marker of someone having been Baptised in the Holy Spirit. As Luke so readily connects the reception of the Spirit with tongues and where the Apostles and the Jerusalem Council (which are admittedly one and the same) were content to acknowledge the incredible world event where the Holy Spirit had now fallen on the Gentiles, why should we not do the same?

I should point out that this marker where the Spirit is evidenced by the individual speaking in tongues (and even ideally prophesying) is really only useful for their conversion/initiation experience, where no one can rely on this in months or years to come where we should be expecting to see a discernible amount of the fruit of the Spirit.

This post is probably long enough as it is so I will leave your other points alone for now.

razzelflabben said:

This is an interesting way of looking at the question....so what would be the primary evidence of an evil spirit if we were to apply the same logic to that that we do to the HS? Would it be super human power like the man in the tombs, or throwing ones self in the fire like the child who was demon possessed. NOt talking here about evidence like you list above, but taking the concept one step further. If we look at both sides the same way, so as to say that the primary evidence of the HS is tongues, then wouldn't we also have to say that the primary evidence of demonic possession is either super strength or throwing ones self to the ground? Yet I have known people possessed that did neither. Hum...something to think about today, thanks.

Click to expand...

This can vary from person to person where at times there may certainly be a degree of super-human strength though anyone who is in a partial manic state would be able to do a similar thing simply as a result of an adrenalin rush. I've seen people go from the extreme where they need to be restrained to those who simply curl up into a foetal position which could be an indicator of a strong emotional disorder which could be either demonic or a result of some emotional trauma. My first experience with this type of thing was when a woman being prayed for suddenly had her voice change from a womanly tone to that of a gruff male/demonic tenor - being my first experience with this type of thing as a teenager it absolutely terrified me.

If someone has been prone to some form of demonic oppression, which is different to possession, then this may or may not appear during their conversion/initiation. If the person or persons who are praying for someone who has a mild form of demonic oppression, then if the person is experienced in this area then things should go on without too much fuss and bother, though someone who is inexperienced (not mature) with this type of ministry then things might quickly become unnecessarily theatric.

Biblicist2 said:

As you say “with the test of time”; we hopefully should all be able to point to those saints who having been in the Lord for many decades have demonstrated by their walk in the Lord that they indeed have the Spirit of God within them.

Click to expand...

focusing on that part totally misses my point in that my point was that these same people have shown the fruit of the spirit from day one....iow's the test of time is only there to show that the fruit in question since day one, was true fruit and not "wax" fruit. Not sure how you missed that point but then again, I seldom know how people can twist things as badly as they do.

But does this really address the problem? As I mentioned previously, how long must we wait before we can confidently measure someone’s salvation by their fruit, would it need to be days, week, months or years? For many people who have been raised in relatively good unsaved homes, their daily walk as unbelievers can be almost indistinguishable from those who are in the Lord. There are certainly those whose salvation can be more than dramatic where their confession of faith can force any demons who are within them to come to the forefront which often requires some serious intervention by those who are present.

Click to expand...

as per the post you are responding to and apparently somehow missed the point of....every believer I have known that has passed the test of time, has shown that fruit from the moment of belief on. They have sinned on occasion and matured and grown, but the fruit was there from the moment of belief unto salvation to the present or end of their lives, depending on who we are talking about. So, to even question what I said, shows you aren't listening to what I said. The point of the post and as I reviewed it to know what you were referring to, was very clear. Even in those who have stood the test of time, THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT WAS PRESENT FROM THE MOMENT OF SALVATION ON, AND THAT FRUIT WAS RECOGNIZABLE AS FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT.

As there are those whose lives are visibly dramatically changed, from what we can tell about the unregenerated Roman centurion and probably at least with his family, as he was held in high esteem by the Jews of his day, then his daily walk would probably be almost indistinguishable from that of many of our contemporary Regenerated cessationist/Evangelical brethren.

Over the decades, whenever I’ve come across church leaders (or anyone else for that matter) who are talking about the numbers who responded to a call to repentance and salvation, the reference point that they use is with the individuals confession and not with their fruit.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is all to common and I suggest might at least be part of why the discussion is being started. Saying a "sinners prayer" is not salvation but we in the Western church have become convinced that it is. Thus, in order to maintain our illusions, we must dismiss the fruit of the spirit, we must dismiss the evidence of our salvation, we must find another guarantee to convince people of, so that they do not know the truth, a truth that can set them free....sorry to be so blunt, but not sure any other way to say it. The Western church is deceived and they refuse to even open their eyes long enough to understand why some of us are telling them this.

Even Luke, he never connects anyone’s salvation with any observable fruit but with their reception of the Holy Spirit and on three occasions he points to them speaking in tongues as the unarguable marker of their conversion/initiation and on the fourth, even though he does not directly refer to tongues, it is certainly implied within the text. The exception to this is when someone is going through a time of deliverance from demonic possession/oppression as a result of their conversion experience, where this type of conversion always generates a bit of discussion; but in most part, they are the exception.

Click to expand...

so, you want to stand by the claim that Luke didn't see the HS being anything but the ability to speak in tongues? (question mark indicating this is what you seem to be saying but we need you to clarify before addressing the issue)

Lukes emphasis with the reception of the Holy Spirit is closely connected with the evidence of speaking in tongues, where his historical record of the early Church and with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has given rise to the speculative descriptor of Lukan theology, which some incorrectly see as being in contrast to Pauls theology. As Lukes historical record closely links the reception of the Holy Spirit with tongues as the evidence of this reception, the realm of ‘Lukan’ theology has become the final point of defence for the old classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence, where they believe that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to the Believer first being sealed in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion/initiation.

Click to expand...

again, waiting for some clarification...for the early church, a church that had no idea who the HS was or how that HS would impact their lives, tongues was very important because it was their first look at what their new lives were to be. But that doesn't mean that it is the only evidence, the primary evidence, the first evidence within the believer today, etc. it means it was a historical occasion of such great magnitude that the speaking of tongues was just a drop in the bucket of what the HS purpose in our lives is all about. Hasn't this passage John 14:12 made you the least bit curious as to what is greater? the HS indwelling is suppose to impact our lives in ways that are much greater than just tongues.

As we discussed further back in this thread, theologians now more readily acknowledge that Luke connects the reception of the Holy Spirit with tongues, though many will recognise that this would not be the only marker of someone having been Baptised in the Holy Spirit. As Luke so readily connects the reception of the Spirit with tongues and where the Apostles and the Jerusalem Council (which are admittedly one and the same) were content to acknowledge the incredible world event where the Holy Spirit had now fallen on the Gentiles, why should we not do the same?

Click to expand...

who is denying tongues as a work of the HS? Maybe you meant something else, another question mark meaning please clarify.

I should point out that this marker where the Spirit is evidenced by the individual speaking in tongues (and even ideally prophesying) is really only useful for their conversion/initiation experience, where no one can rely on this in months or years to come where we should be expecting to see a discernible amount of the fruit of the Spirit.

This post is probably long enough as it is so I will leave your other points alone for now.

Click to expand...

what I am saying is that those who have passed the test of time, all showed the fruit of the spirit from day one on....

Biblicist2 said:

This can vary from person to person where at times there may certainly be a degree of super-human strength though anyone who is in a partial manic state would be able to do a similar thing simply as a result of an adrenalin rush. I've seen people go from the extreme where they need to be restrained to those who simply curl up into a foetal position which could be an indicator of a strong emotional disorder which could be either demonic or a result of some emotional trauma. My first experience with this type of thing was when a woman being prayed for suddenly had her voice change from a womanly tone to that of a gruff male/demonic tenor - being my first experience with this type of thing as a teenager it absolutely terrified me.

If someone has been prone to some form of demonic oppression, which is different to possession, then this may or may not appear during their conversion/initiation. If the person or persons who are praying for someone who has a mild form of demonic oppression, then if the person is experienced in this area then things should go on without too much fuss and bother, though someone who is inexperienced (not mature) with this type of ministry then things might quickly become unnecessarily theatric.

Click to expand...

this time, I read your response first, then had to go back and read my response you were responding to, cause for the life of me I couldn't even figure out what you were going on about and how any of this related to what I said. Then, I reread my post and realized you were missing the point again.

The point is this, if we are going to look at scripture the way some do when it comes to the claim that tongues is the primary evidence of the HS, then we should come to the conclusion using the same logic and biblical application to say that the primary evidence of demonic possession would be super human strength and living in isolation. Yet you yourself dismiss this notion. So why would we want to apply the logic and biblical interpretation differently? Why be inconsistent in our application of understanding? Why can't the bible be consistent in this matter? That is the point.

razzelflabben said:

this time, I read your response first, then had to go back and read my response you were responding to, cause for the life of me I couldn't even figure out what you were going on about and how any of this related to what I said. Then, I reread my post and realized you were missing the point again.

The point is this, if we are going to look at scripture the way some do when it comes to the claim that tongues is the primary evidence of the HS, then we should come to the conclusion using the same logic and biblical application to say that the primary evidence of demonic possession would be super human strength and living in isolation. Yet you yourself dismiss this notion. So why would we want to apply the logic and biblical interpretation differently? Why be inconsistent in our application of understanding? Why can't the bible be consistent in this matter? That is the point.

Click to expand...

I realised what you were after but as your background is cessationist where you are being compelled to look at aspects of the Christian walk from the outside, where we (or many of us) have been able to frequently experience these things then I decided to cover a few bases first.

I would have hoped that from my reply you would have realised that there is no “primary evidence of an evil spirit” where we can move from the more apparent level of the demonic where someone can quickly go into a manic state to those who are being oppressed (not possessed) by demonic influences. I had hoped that my previous reply would have demonstrated that “logic and Biblical application” along with the application of the Holy Spirit that these things would be clear. So there is no value with connecting the normative Biblical pattern where the reception of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initiate speaking in tongues with the various levels of demonic possession and oppression.

To summarise, as I explained in my previous post, Luke (Acts) made no effort to connect the reception of the Holy Spirit with any discernible fruit of the Spirit, which as I explained before, can be almost impossible to discern within most people at least within their first few days or weeks. As Luke only connects the reception of the Holy Spirit with the ability of the initiate demonstrating that they can speak in tongues and that this was the ONLY deciding factor which allowed the Jerusalem Council to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles, then why should we argue with Lukes testimony?

Remember, the Pentecostal denominations (along with the charismatics) in areas such as South America, Africa and Asia have made massive inroads into these areas since the 70’s where the more traditional denominations have essentially failed to make any discernible inroads. Where the traditionalists seem to have set their benchmark low when it comes to conversion, regeneration and spiritual growth, this has allowed the Pentecostal missionaries to recognise that the traditionalist benchmark has often been little more than obedience to their way of doing things. The Pentecostal denominations have been able to move into these same cultures that are intensely demonic where the Power of the Holy Spirit has been able to break down these strongholds. Since the 70’s we have seen countless thousands released from demonic possession which has worried the more traditionalist denominations particularly with the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed as they simply cannot do the same.

We cannot compare the Power of the Spirit with the fruit of the Spirit

It should be pointed out, that whenever the Holy Spirit has allowed a new initiate to break free from from even extreme levels of manic demonic possession, or even drug addiction within moments of their reception of the Holy Spirit; that these things are not a result of the fruit of the Spirit but with the Power of the Holy Spirit - the two are not one and the same.

Biblicist2 said:

It should be pointed out, that whenever the Holy Spirit has allowed a new initiate to break free from from even extreme levels of manic demonic possession, or even drug addiction within moments of their reception of the Holy Spirit; that these things are not a result of the fruit of the Spirit but with the Power of the Holy Spirit - the two are not one and the same.

Click to expand...

Don't answer this Bib's (I have given you nickname ) if it is going to mess up the thread, but if a manic demonic possession or a severely drug addicted person would say be saved and from that moment or moments after be freed from their demonic possession or drug addiction do you consider that part of that person's salvation experience or would you consider that to be miracle of God, followed by salvation and that person becoming indwelled by the Holy Spirit?

For instance, to me the basic salvation experience (forgiveness of sins by Christ and then the Holy Spirit residing or coming into that person's heart) would be to me the quote unquote salvation experience.

Then, if a person has been given the gift of tongues, that can happy right after salvation (the person receiving the Holy Spirit) or at some time later.

If a person were, for example demon possessed, I would think that that person had experienced a miraculous casting out of said demon (by Christ), then basic salvation (because the Holy Spirit could not (or I do not believe it is biblical) be given to a person and reside in said person at the same time as a demon.

If a person were drug addicted, then they could be saved and have the Holy Spirit reside in them and be delivered from the addiction I guess either before or after.

It's confusing because before the Holy Spirit can reside in a person's heart, they must be made perfect by the full forgiveness of sin by our Savior Jesus Christ. However, I cannot see our Savior blessing one with salvation and leaving a demon inside of them for the Holy Spirit to kick out later.

Maybe I am making a big deal out of if it is Jesus Christ, during salvation who would kick a demon out of someone that was being saved over the Holy Spirit doing it, but I think the order of these things is important in people's understanding so they can break down in small steps what happens and in what order.

I hope I explained that right, but I know that it is Jesus Christ during Salvation that sends the Holy Spirit. So, in my mind I would think that it would be Jesus not the Holy Spirit casting out a demon.

I am breaking this down because I think it is an important point because people often group so many problems/solutions together (ie.. Salvation, Tongues, Demons cast out ) and I want to understand why you think it is the Holy Spirit vs. Jesus Christ because if the person has asked for Salvation, then why could it not be Christ? Christ prepares the body to be 'perfect' spiritually before the Holy Spirit is given to the person.

I am tired now, brain is churning slowly. Long day today + Friday. Hope this makes sense, if not please ask for clarification.

ToBeLoved said:

Don't answer this Bib's . . .

Click to expand...

Wow...there some very relevent questions which deserve a bit more thought before I reply, where I really wonder if I have the ability to adequately answer your questions. Back in a few hours.

Biblicist2 said:

Wow...there some very relevent questions which deserve a bit more thought before I reply, where I really wonder if I have the ability to adequately answer your questions. Back in a few hours.

Click to expand...

Well l will certainly be interested in hearing what you have to say. I know that you read a lot of scholarly biblical references and books, so I wanted to ask you especially what you found.

ToBeLoved said:

For instance, to me the basic salvation experience (forgiveness of sins by Christ and then the Holy Spirit residing or coming into that person's heart) would be to me the quote unquote salvation experience.

Click to expand...

Even though this was your second question I think that it is one that should be answered first.

What you have acurately described combines both the Christological (Christ’s work on the Cross) and Pneumatological (the role of the Holy Spirit) aspects of our conversion/initiation; where the Father decrees salvation for man and Christ is the enabler and the Holy Spirit is both our sanctifier and empowering.

Don't answer this Bib's (I have given you nickname ) if it is going to mess up the thread, but if a manic demonic possession or a severely drug addicted person would say be saved and from that moment or moments after be freed from their demonic possession or drug addiction do you consider that part of that person's salvation experience or would you consider that to be miracle of God, followed by salvation and that person becoming indwelled by the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

This is a really good question.
In an ideal situation, I would say that if anyone who was about to repent and confess Jesus as Lord, where they were in any way demonically possessed (not just possessed), then I would be inclined to say (as an opinion) that we would in all probability see a fight on our hands.

In my estimation, here’s where maybe even the best explanations from within a theological framework may have their limitations. For instance, we can all appreciate that when the Holy Spirit is about to enter upon a person as a result of their conversion/initiation into their new spiritual walk that we should probably expect to see the demon reacting to this event. From a practical viewpoint, if the person is able to give their assent to a call to salvation, then we could presume that any demonic forces that may be residing within them that they may not have full control over the individual; but what happens when someone goes forward for prayer where a number of Spirit led believers all of a suddenly lay hands on them?

Are these demonic forces able to determine that some of those praying have an affective ministry with say, the word of knowledge or even that someone may be affective within the Office of Powers (aka miracles) where they have previously demonstrated an ability (through the Power of the Holy Spirit) to deliver people from demonic possession. Would this scenario be enough to see a physical outburst or would the individual simply remain passive and unresponsive?

Now that’s how to answer a question without maybe providing a succinct answer!

Then, if a person has been given the gift of tongues, that can happy right after salvation (the person receiving the Holy Spirit) or at some time later.

Click to expand...

Even though it can certainly happen way after our initial conversion, as it did with me and many others as well, ideally it should occur at the moment of our conversion/initiation. If the intending initiate is properly taught, where he/she is aware that they can pray in the Spirit (tongues) and ideally even prophesy, then there is no reason that this should not happen immediately.

This is probably more likely to occur when they are being prayed for by those who expect the Spirit to outwork through the individual through tongues (and prophecy); in many of our Majority World Pentecostal congregations we can be thankful if any intending initiates are even given the ‘sinners prayer’ let alone with a Full Gospel expectation of the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

If a person were, for example demon possessed, I would think that that person had experienced a miraculous casting out of said demon (by Christ), then basic salvation (because the Holy Spirit could not (or I do not believe it is biblical) be given to a person and reside in said person at the same time as a demon.

Click to expand...

Theologically speaking, as Christs work in our salvation was essentially with his role on the Cross, when it comes to any demonic interference, this would definitely be the role of the Holy Spirit to address; though he would most likely only do so when there are Believers present who are able to operate in one of the relevant Offices of 1Cor 12:28.

If a person were drug addicted, then they could be saved and have the Holy Spirit reside in them and be delivered from the addiction I guess either before or after.

Click to expand...

As for drug addiction, now I have certainly heard of accounts where people were supposed to have been completely healed from drug addiction during their conversion/initiation experience, but in reality, as this is one of those sins of the body, as with long-term sexual perversions, alcohol and nicotine addiction, I really wonder how such a quick healing is all that possible. Though this does not discount the possibility that someone has been physically restored as a result of someone who functions within the Operation of Powers (aka miracles).

This brings up the point that we are not simply islands, where it is only "Jesus and me" but where a healthy and properly functioning church is in operation. In my opinion, if we do not have people working in all of the 8 Congregatiol Offices (1Cor 12:28), then we will most likely limit the power of the Holy Spirit within the lives of those who are new initiates.

It's confusing because before the Holy Spirit can reside in a person's heart, they must be made perfect by the full forgiveness of sin by our Savior Jesus Christ. However, I cannot see our Savior blessing one with salvation and leaving a demon inside of them for the Holy Spirit to kick out later.

Maybe I am making a big deal out of if it is Jesus Christ, during salvation who would kick a demon out of someone that was being saved over the Holy Spirit doing it, but I think the order of these things is important in people's understanding so they can break down in small steps what happens and in what order.

Click to expand...

This goes back to an earlier point where Christ’s work is essentially with the Cross and where the Holy Spirit is the one who deals with any issues of demonic possession and physical addictions.

I hope I explained that right, but I know that it is Jesus Christ during Salvation that sends the Holy Spirit. So, in my mind I would think that it would be Jesus not the Holy Spirit casting out a demon.

Click to expand...

Okay, it’s one thing to hope that you’ve explained yourself as you would have liked to, but it can be another thing where I hope that I’ve been able to adequately explain my views from within a Scriptural framework.

I am breaking this down because I think it is an important point because people often group so many problems/solutions together (ie.. Salvation, Tongues, Demons cast out ) and I want to understand why you think it is the Holy Spirit vs. Jesus Christ because if the person has asked for Salvation, then why could it not be Christ? Christ prepares the body to be 'perfect' spiritually before the Holy Spirit is given to the person.

Click to expand...

If we go back to the opening paragraph, it is not in any way “Jesus vs. the Holy Spirit” but where both the Son and the Holy Spirit are working in cooperation within the life of the Believer. Without the sacrificial work of the Son on the Cross then we would all be doomed to eternal punishment, but through Jesus we have received eternal life where the Holy Spirit is our Eschatological down payment of the future Kingdom of God. It is through the Holy Spirit that we are not only grafted into the Body (as a result of the work of Christ) but where he is the one who sanctifies and regenerates us and most importantly, where he makes us each vessels where he can outwork himself (1Cor 12:7-11) through us to others. It is a uniquely Trinitarian event.

That was one very hard post to compile but where it was at least for me rather satisfying in the end!