Evidence of the Holy Spirit

[Biblicist]

Subtitle: Why we think what we think and how we go about describing our viewpoint

To quote another: "I recall in some places the speaking of tongues is used as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. But what about the fruit of the Spirit"?

This question is probably best addressed within the Pentecostal forum as it is undoubtedly something that is best understood from within a Full Gospel theological framework. I would probably redefine the original question by asking, how do we decide if someone has received the Holy Spirit at the moment of their conversion-initiation?

Even though I am theologically a non classic Pentecostal, where I am of the view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (BHS) is received by all when they their repent of their sin (where tongues should accompany this experience), I more than encourage those who hold to the traditional Pentecostal view of subsequence to vigorously present their position of subsequence, where the BHS is received subsequent to our first being 'sealed' in the Spirit.


Edit: As an afterthough I added a sub-title

 

[dragongunner]

I'll be one of those who will admit I am not sure what your asking…LOL. But will proceed with only my modest observations and perhaps you can figure it out. Of all the people I met in pentecost, who had received the BHS with evidence of tongues, none ever received it when they had repented. For some it came days, weeks and even years afterwards. Some had repented and turned to Christ when they were in other churches of other denominations, that did not believe in the BHS, then later in their walk found a pentecost church where they recieved. If I read correctly, its repent, be baptized in Jesus name and ye shall receive the BHS, so it always seemed to me that the BHS usually comes later, although I believe after repentance we received the spirit of Christ. I was originally taught the the evidence of the BHS is always in tongues, and all that receive it must speak in tongues, this was believed because it seem that in the bible whenever it was poured out, they alway spoke in tongues. Which I concede seems to be the case when we look at the scriptures…..but the question I have is it always the case for everyone….I still lean to that side, however there are those who say it may not always be the case, as there are other signs "that shall follow them which believe." And tongues is only one of those, not the only one. So I have to question some things myself. Hope this did not lead your thread in another direction that you wanted.

 

[Biblicist]

That's a good reply where you addressed my question superbly.
You're position is known as the classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) position regarding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is received sometime after we are first Born Again; where as you stated, the classic-Pentecostal position is that Christ first Baptises us in the Holy Spirit where it is often refered to as being 'sealed in the Spirit', which is a term the AoG apparently do not use or like to encourage but it's a very popular term that helps to clarifify the AoG position.

After I read your post I went back and added an unofficial subtitle where I would like to see this thread addressing not only our opinion as to how we would decide if someone had the Holy Spirit within them (particularly with day one of their conversion-initiation) but as your post pointed out, it can be hopeful to know why we believe what we do and how we go about describing what we believe God's Word says on this matter.

A good reason for taking this approach is that as I am a non classic-Pentecostal, where I believe that all Born Again Christians are BHS, even if they speak in tongues or not; as I strongly connect the Biblical evidence as indicating that when someone receives the Spirit at their conversion-initation, that they should speak in tongues (though this is not mandatory), it can help us to understand how both of these camps think. My view that tongues should accompany our reception of the Holy Spirit is what makes me a Pentecostal, though not a classic-Pentecostal.

So, here we both are, rightfully defending the Pentecostal (both classic and non classic) position that tongues is connected with the BHS, so how do we both go about this particularly when we find ourselves talking to maybe a cessationist on this matter? This is where a Pentecostal forum can be helpful in that even though our two positions could be deemed to be theologically opposed to one another, this does not detract from our shared experience in the Holy Spirit where we both speak in tongues.

By the way, it seems that along with millions of others, we both came into the things of the Spirit (where we spoke in tongues) some time after we were first saved; this means that even though I am not a classic-Pentecostal I still have a lot of sympathy and understanding for your point of view.

 

[quietbloke]

I've found David Petts books very helpful in understanding the interesting subject of the Holy Spirit and His gifts. Mr Petts was the ex- Principal of Mattersey Hall Bible College UK

 

[Alithis]

I more than encourage those who hold to the traditional Pentecostal view of subsequence.........

could you explain for this less traditionally educated fellow the "subsequence view" so i can figure out if i hold it ... pretty please with natural honey on top.

for the most part ALL i know on the subject is learned from that which i have experienced and lived and read in the bible ..honestly i really have no other level of education on anything biblical save 20 yrs back reading moody finny howells and testimonies about wigglesworth ... most of which iv forgotten .

 

[Biblicist]

could you explain for this less traditionally educated fellow the "subsequence view" so i can figure out if i hold it ... pretty please with natural honey on top.

for the most part ALL i know on the subject is learned from that which i have experienced and lived and read in the bible ..honestly i really have no other level of education on anything biblical save 20 yrs back reading moody finny howells and testimonies about wigglesworth ... most of which iv forgotten .

Before I jump into the main reason for your question, you’re probably like most of us in that the vast majority will undoubtedly be relying on the older commentaries and books, this means that we can easily miss out on what’s happening in the Church of our day. As I said in an earlier post, I’m sort of cheating in that it can be relatively (and I do say only relatively) easy for me to throw around the latest buzzwords, as I decided maybe five years back to start replacing my library with books that were published within around the past 25 years, where my interest would now be more with those that were published in the last 10 years.

Anyway, if you want to sound well-read and that you’re up with the latest goss, if you find yourself talking to an AoG minister about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, where you are able to keep a straight face by asking, “Do you hold to the Lukan perspective with regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, where it is one of subsequence”; if the chap doesn’t look at you as if you are speaking in tongues, then he will probably realise that he could be in for a very interesting discussion.

As all North American and Australian (maybe NZ) AoG credentialed ministers must sign that they agree that the BHS (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) occurs sometime after our initial salvation, as many AoG ministers don’t really believe this classic-Pentecostal doctrine, then it may be one that they secretly would not want to have.

Reply starts here _________________________________

When it comes to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the theologians in more recent years will describe this Baptism from within one of two frameworks:

Lukan theology (this is an artificial distinction)

For those who believe that the BHS (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) is received sometime after our first being ‘sealed’ in the Spirit when we are saved; which could be minutes, hours, days or even years later, then they are forced to base their belief system on Luke’s writings in Acts.

When a classic Pentecostal (i.e., Aog) reads Luke’s material, they are presuming that Luke ‘s theology is in opposition to that of Paul, where the more astute classic Pentecostal will be more inclined to say that Luke does not oppose Paul but that he complements him. From my perspective, I would say that those who hold to a distinctive Lukan understanding of the BHS, that they are merely misreading his historical narrative where in reality he is not in opposition to Paul in any way.

Subsequence is the term that is used to describe how the BHS occures subsequent or later on after we were first 'sealed in the Spirit' when we were Born Again. The classic-Pentecostal (AoG) will only recognise that someone has been BHS by their evidence of speakin in tongues. The non classic-Pentecostal (me) will say that upon our conversion-initiation that every new initiate SHOULD speak in tongues but that it is NOT compulsory to do so.

For what it's worth, classic-Pentecostals and particularly those from within the AoG, they don't really like the term 'sealed' as they would say that when we are first converted, that the Holy Spirit is with us, where once we are Baptised in the Holy Spirit that he is then in us.

Probably the best book on the classic Pentecostal position was written by W & R Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (2000). This 233 page book is undoubtedly the finest defence of the classic Pentecostal understanding of the reception of the Holy Spirit; even though I disagree with their position, it is a book that should be read by all.

Pauline theology

It would be universally recognised that Paul does not suggest or even hint that the BHS is meant to be received at any time other than when we are first converted-regenerated. As Paul does not suggest that there is a second experience where we receive the Holy Spirit apart from Salvation, this forces the classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG etc) to base their view on Luke’s writings in Acts.

When we read Paul’s material on salvation and the Holy Spirit, he always equates the two as being one event. Most importantly, Paul’s material seems to presume that all Christians will speak in tongues and where all or at least most should be prophesying as well. Paul equates our reception of the Spirit at the moment we are first saved as being for both sanctification and empowerment. Sadly, over the centuries the traditional Evangelical understanding regarding the role the Holy Spirit undertakes in and through the Believer, has been so watered down that most hardly know or even experience the Holy Spirit in any tangible way.

This can potentially create a bit of a problem . . . .

As I am a (non-classic) Pentecostal, where I believe that the Biblical record indicates that when we receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion-initiation, that this is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; this gives the Evangelical the right to say, “wait a minute, if you believe that every Christian is Baptised in the Holy Spirit, then this means that we non-tongue speaking Christians are Baptised in the Holy Spirit as well” – which is a legitimate argument!

Even though they would be correct, this is where I can now pull out my Pentecostal ‘get-out-of-jail’ card where I reply by saying that the Biblical record indicates that that when we are first filled with the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion-initiation, that Luke’s record indicates that we should be able to demonstrate the Spirit’s infilling by speaking in tongues (and maybe along with prophesying). Tongues and prophecy are deemed to be Operations of proclamation where we can now confess with our mouths that Jesus is our Lord.

PS. I'm not sure if this was a post or a full blown sermon!

 

[quietbloke]

I recommend the uptodate books on the Holy Spirit by David Petts. You can find them easily on David Petts website. 'Introduction to the Holy Spirit' 'Body Builders - Gifts that make the Body grow' etc.

 

[Biblicist]

I recommend the uptodate books on the Holy Spirit by David Petts. You can find them easily on David Petts website. 'Introduction to the Holy Spirit' 'Body Builders - Gifts that make the Body grow' etc.

As I don't know of David Petts, what particular section/s of his book speak on the topic of this thread? I know that it's not always easy to scan in multiple paragraphs but could you maybe summarise a few of his points.

 

[quietbloke]

As I don't know of David Petts, what particular section/s of his book speak on the topic of this thread? I know that it's not always easy to scan in multiple paragraphs but could you maybe summarise a few of his points.

His books give the Classic Pentecostal view

 

[Alithis]

Before I jump into the main reason for your question, you’re probably like most of us in that the vast majority will undoubtedly be relying on the older commentaries and books, this means that we can easily miss out on what’s happening in the Church of our day. As I said in an earlier post, I’m sort of cheating in that it can be relatively (and I do say only relatively) easy for me to throw around the latest buzzwords, as I decided maybe five years back to start replacing my library with books that were published within around the past 25 years, where my interest would now be more with those that were published in the last 10 years.

Anyway, if you want to sound well-read and that you’re up with the latest goss, if you find yourself talking to an AoG minister about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, where you are able to keep a straight face by asking, “Do you hold to the Lukan perspective with regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, where it is one of subsequence”; if the chap doesn’t look at you as if you are speaking in tongues, then he will probably realise that he could be in for a very interesting discussion.

As all North American and Australian (maybe NZ) AoG credentialed ministers must sign that they agree that the BHS (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) occurs sometime after our initial salvation, as many AoG ministers don’t really believe this classic-Pentecostal doctrine, then it may be one that they secretly would not want to have.

Reply starts here _________________________________

When it comes to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the theologians in more recent years will describe this Baptism from within one of two frameworks:

Lukan theology (this is an artificial distinction)

For those who believe that the BHS (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) is received sometime after our first being ‘sealed’ in the Spirit when we are saved; which could be minutes, hours, days or even years later, then they are forced to base their belief system on Luke’s writings in Acts.

When a classic Pentecostal (i.e., Aog) reads Luke’s material, they are presuming that Luke ‘s theology is in opposition to that of Paul, where the more astute classic Pentecostal will be more inclined to say that Luke does not oppose Paul but that he complements him. From my perspective, I would say that those who hold to a distinctive Lukan understanding of the BHS, that they are merely misreading his historical narrative where in reality he is not in opposition to Paul in any way.

Subsequence is the term that is used to describe how the BHS occures subsequent or later on after we were first 'sealed in the Spirit' when we were Born Again. The classic-Pentecostal (AoG) will only recognise that someone has been BHS by their evidence of speakin in tongues. The non classic-Pentecostal (me) will say that upon our conversion-initiation that every new initiate SHOULD speak in tongues but that it is NOT compulsory to do so.

For what it's worth, classic-Pentecostals and particularly those from within the AoG, they don't really like the term 'sealed' as they would say that when we are first converted, that the Holy Spirit is with us, where once we are Baptised in the Holy Spirit that he is then in us.

Probably the best book on the classic Pentecostal position was written by W & R Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (2000). This 233 page book is undoubtedly the finest defence of the classic Pentecostal understanding of the reception of the Holy Spirit; even though I disagree with their position, it is a book that should be read by all.

Pauline theology

It would be universally recognised that Paul does not suggest or even hint that the BHS is meant to be received at any time other than when we are first converted-regenerated. As Paul does not suggest that there is a second experience where we receive the Holy Spirit apart from Salvation, this forces the classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG etc) to base their view on Luke’s writings in Acts.

When we read Paul’s material on salvation and the Holy Spirit, he always equates the two as being one event. Most importantly, Paul’s material seems to presume that all Christians will speak in tongues and where all or at least most should be prophesying as well. Paul equates our reception of the Spirit at the moment we are first saved as being for both sanctification and empowerment. Sadly, over the centuries the traditional Evangelical understanding regarding the role the Holy Spirit undertakes in and through the Believer, has been so watered down that most hardly know or even experience the Holy Spirit in any tangible way.

This can potentially create a bit of a problem . . . .

As I am a (non-classic) Pentecostal, where I believe that the Biblical record indicates that when we receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion-initiation, that this is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; this gives the Evangelical the right to say, “wait a minute, if you believe that every Christian is Baptised in the Holy Spirit, then this means that we non-tongue speaking Christians are Baptised in the Holy Spirit as well” – which is a legitimate argument!

Even though they would be correct, this is where I can now pull out my Pentecostal ‘get-out-of-jail’ card where I reply by saying that the Biblical record indicates that that when we are first filled with the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion-initiation, that Luke’s record indicates that we should be able to demonstrate the Spirit’s infilling by speaking in tongues (and maybe along with prophesying). Tongues and prophecy are deemed to be Operations of proclamation where we can now confess with our mouths that Jesus is our Lord.

PS. I'm not sure if this was a post or a full blown sermon!

well now .. thanks for that ..now i know .but im none the wiser as to what stance i might have on it .

and the reason for asking is actually very straightforward .. i actually, simply did not know what you meant .

So without all the readings you've mentioned. what i thus far "understand " in my own life ..is that "having believed " the lord led me to himself and the point in life where he sealed me undoubtedly with his Holy Spirit .imparting unto me that "down payment " guaranteeing that the fullness of his promises are a done deal to be delivered in due time (being his return) .In hindsight i can ask myself ..was i truly saved before that point .. the reply i come up with is ,yes -by grace through faith . but was i sealed by the holy Spirit ? for me ..again using hindsight.. No.And i only say that because when that "sealing " or baptism or whatever terminology we wish to call is , occurred ,it was personally undeniable in both power and in Glorifying the lord Jesus unto me and led on to visions and then to dreams ..leading to a deliverance from 15 years of recurring night terrors which i never experienced again from that day to this . (so as you can see i speak from experiential knowledge as i learn more there ,then from theology and have only ever found the things iv learned (little though they be )of the Holy Spirit are only ever in perfect harmony with and enhanced by the written word of God {that all important test} .....

at this time im tired and these days don't handle being tired so well as i did years ago lol. so if im not communicating clearly i apologize. one thing is certain..i have no desire to disagree and im always searching for the point of harmony in the unity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within those who receive him to the glory or the Lord Jesus and the will of our heavenly Father revealed to us in Christ Jesus

 

[dragongunner]

Excellent posts…..Although I believe we receive the HS at conversion, repentance and being born again, I do not call that the BHS. Which I believe could happen, but usually not until later. "For if we have not the HS, we are none of his"….and this scripture I have witnessed time and again some pentecostal preachers saying that without the BHS with tongues you are not saved and are none of His for without the BHS and tongues you have not received the HS. Which I contend does not make sense, since we know a Apostle went up in a cart to teach a traveler the things of God, who then believed and said here is water, and the Apostle said if you believe, and he did, and was baptized….and the apostle was caught away and the man went on his way rejoicing……with that said, there is no account that he was BHS with tongues……so why would he go on his way rejoicing if he was not saved, and yet some of these pentecostals preachers I have met would have to say, yes he still was not saved. But like what Alithis said, we are saved by Grace….and if we are saved, we then must have the HS, for without it how can we be His, for the scriptures say, "For if we have not the HS, we are none of his." So for me I see a clear distection between being saved and having the HS, and the BHS. Also in Acts after Peter spoke it says there was added unto them about 3000, so I would take it that they were those who came to Christ, but is there any account that all 3000 were BHS with tongues also on that same day? If they had not, some would say they couldn't of been added.

 

[quietbloke]

Excellent posts…..Although I believe we receive the HS at conversion, repentance and being born again, I do not call that the BHS. Which I believe could happen, but usually not until later. "For if we have not the HS, we are none of his"….and this scripture I have witnessed time and again some pentecostal preachers saying that without the BHS with tongues you are not saved and are none of His for without the BHS and tongues you have not received the HS. Which I contend does not make sense, since we know a Apostle went up in a cart to teach a traveler the things of God, who then believed and said here is water, and the Apostle said if you believe, and he did, and was baptized….and the apostle was caught away and the man went on his way rejoicing……with that said, there is no account that he was BHS with tongues……so why would he go on his way rejoicing if he was not saved, and yet some of these pentecostals preachers I have met would have to say, yes he still was not saved. But like what Alithis said, we are saved by Grace….and if we are saved, we then must have the HS, for without it how can we be His, for the scriptures say, "For if we have not the HS, we are none of his." So for me I see a clear distection between being saved and having the HS, and the BHS. Also in Acts after Peter spoke it says there was added unto them about 3000, so I would take it that they were those who came to Christ, but is there any account that all 3000 were BHS with tongues also on that same day? If they had not, some would say they couldn't of been added.

I agree with you on this,'dragangunner' The scriptural pattern is'Repent and be baptised in water and go on to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. When we are born again,it is an operation of the Holy Spirit.Christ's nature is in us by the Holy Spirit. We have been adopted into the family of God and God the Father is in us through redemption. Although the Holy Spirit is in us we go on to be baptised in the Holy Spirit.That is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. He overflows through us to a needy world around to whom we become witnesses.

 

[dragongunner]

I agree with you on this,'dragangunner' The scriptural pattern is'Repent and be baptised in water and go on to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. When we are born again,it is an operation of the Holy Spirit.Christ's nature is in us by the Holy Spirit. We have been adopted into the family of God and God the Father is in us through redemption. Although the Holy Spirit is in us we go on to be baptised in the Holy Spirit.That is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. He overflows through us to a needy world around to whom we become witnesses.

Yes, thats my thinking and view. As I looked on the web found a church here in my home state, and had the exact statement I made above, they quoted scripture about "if anyone not having the Spirit of God in them", and then quoted "ye must be born again ..of the spirit", and how do you get born again."by being baptized in the Holy Ghost" otherwise you are none of his…..so I see their scriptures, but disagree with their logic that they came to that conclusion. For when Jesus told Nicedemous "ye must be born again of water and spirit" and then asked how he could not understand these things…..well, how would of Nicedemous have anyway of knowing about the BHS when it had not been poured out yet…..? Jesus would not of had any right to chastise him for something he could not of known about. So to me, being born again was talking about water baptism, and OUR spirit being born again unto the revelation of Christ being the Son of God, and not the BHS that Jesus would talk about later to come. And this is where I think they error in interpretation….but this is what I have come to see in the scriptures…..

 

[quietbloke]

Yes, thats my thinking and view. As I looked on the web found a church here in my home state, and had the exact statement I made above, they quoted scripture about "if anyone not having the Spirit of God in them", and then quoted "ye must be born again ..of the spirit", and how do you get born again."by being baptized in the Holy Ghost" otherwise you are none of his…..so I see their scriptures, but disagree with their logic that they came to that conclusion. For when Jesus told Nicedemous "ye must be born again of water and spirit" and then asked how he could not understand these things…..well, how would of Nicedemous have anyway of knowing about the BHS when it had not been poured out yet…..? Jesus would not of had any right to chastise him for something he could not of known about. So to me, being born again was talking about water baptism, and OUR spirit being born again unto the revelation of Christ being the Son of God, and not the BHS that Jesus would talk about later to come. And this is where I think they error in interpretation….but this is what I have come to see in the scriptures…..

That's right. 'Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with salvation. As you say,salvation is by grace alone. We put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice for us when He died at Calvary. We believe that He rose again and confess with our mouth Jesus as our Lord. It is not of works,like speaking in tongues. After being born anew we go on to be baptised in water. When we are baptised in the Holy Spirit we can speak in tongues and other signs can follow those who believe!

 

[Alithis]

Lets acknowedge that we are splintering the topic into one of evidence of salvations vs evidence of the baptism of the holy spirit . salvation for now is agreed upon by all.by grace you are saved through faith.

But having been saved the lord desires to indwell us his now consecrated temple.
Evidence of the occurance of this is varied and i think subject to personal testimony of both the individual and the observer .however from a scriptural view point tongues is strongly pointed to as ocurring every time its recorded that believers were baptized in the Holy ghost.and then quoted as the evidence to all the apostles that the lord had accepted and acknowledged the gentiles also...ie~ how were they assured that gentiles were being baptised in the holy spirit,,it was obvious because "they spoke in other tongues. When the holy Spirit entered thier hearts.
We are the temple... The place where the spirit of God enters with his presence and puts his name...
If we were to look at it as a covenant of good faith... When we believe and confess outwardly what is on our hearts ..that jesus is lord, that is us spiritually signing the spiritual covenant... The baptism of the holy Spirit is God placing his royal seal on the other sign here line of that eternal spiritual document.
A momentous occasion in a believers life.

 

[Biblicist]

well now .. thanks for that ..now i know .but im none the wiser as to what stance i might have on it .

and the reason for asking is actually very straightforward .. i actually, simply did not know what you meant .

So without all the readings you've mentioned. what i thus far "understand " in my own life ..is that "having believed " the lord led me to himself and the point in life where he sealed me undoubtedly with his Holy Spirit .imparting unto me that "down payment " guaranteeing that the fullness of his promises are a done deal to be delivered in due time (being his return) .In hindsight i can ask myself ..was i truly saved before that point .. the reply i come up with is ,yes -by grace through faith . but was i sealed by the holy Spirit ? for me ..again using hindsight.. No.And i only say that because when that "sealing " or baptism or whatever terminology we wish to call is , occurred ,it was personally undeniable in both power and in Glorifying the lord Jesus unto me and led on to visions and then to dreams ..leading to a deliverance from 15 years of recurring night terrors which i never experienced again from that day to this . (so as you can see i speak from experiential knowledge as i learn more there ,then from theology and have only ever found the things iv learned (little though they be )of the Holy Spirit are only ever in perfect harmony with and enhanced by the written word of God {that all important test} .....

at this time im tired and these days don't handle being tired so well as i did years ago lol. so if im not communicating clearly i apologize. one thing is certain..i have no desire to disagree and im always searching for the point of harmony in the unity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within those who receive him to the glory or the Lord Jesus and the will of our heavenly Father revealed to us in Christ Jesus

We probably both share a common experience with our formative years in the Lord. Even though many of us understood the work that Christ undertook on our behalf on the cross, where this allowed us to repent and confess our sin and acknowledge Jesus as our Lord and Saviour; many of us were not taught that beside the Holy Spirit not only being our sanctifier and regenerator, we did not understand that he is also our source of empowerment as well.

For those of us who had the opportunity to experience a portion of the Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s and 70’s, even if it was only in our youth; there were millions of Evangelical Christians who knew little if anything of the Holy Spirit who later experienced the power and vitality of the Holy Spirit in a way that we had never known. When we began to speak in tongues, for the vast majority of us this “second” experience probably outshone our conversion where our new ability to proclaim the wonders of God in Angelic tongues allowed us to “fully know that we knew” that the presence of the Living God was indwelling with us.

This means that we were more than prepared to accept the classic-understanding of the reception of the Holy Spirit where the BHS is supposed to follow that of our first being ‘sealed’ in the Spirit (which is subsequence). But our new ‘second’ experience was little more than an accident of history, where instead of receiving the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues at the moment our of conversion-initiation, this happened sometime after, which for many could have been years later.

To summarise:

For those of us came to the Lord within an Evangelical setting, where we were first born again (our conversion-initiation), where our conversion allowed us to be initiated into the Kingdom of God by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, we still lacked the understanding that we could immediately begin to praise God in Angelic tongues and where we could even begin to immediately prophesy.

This brings us back to the purpose of this thread; for those of us who embraced the Lord through the limitations of the Evangelical mindset, we generally understood that the Holy Spirit was now residing within us, even though our understanding was more academic than experiential, so when we found ourselves in a setting that allowed us to fully experience the power of the Holy Spirit, where we could now praise God in Angelic tongues and prophesy, this understandably allowed us to incorrectly believe that we had experienced the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a second blessing apart from us first being ‘sealed’ in the Spirit at our point of salvation.

For those of us who transitioned from an Evangelical understanding of the conversion-initiation experience, into the fullness of the Pentecostal experience, we can be excused for believing that once having been “sealed” in the Spirit at our moment of salvation, that we were to then receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit sometime later which was to be evidenced by our speaking in tongues. For the Church of the first couple of centuries, they understood that this ‘sealing’ and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) was to be one and the same experience.

Most importantly, as we are really only discussing Day 1 of our conversion-initiation, where for most the only discernible activity of the Holy Spirit will be through their new ability to proclaim God's wonders through being able to praise God in Angelic tongues (and maybe even prophesy); there will of course be those who lives are dramatically changed by maybe being delivered of demonic spirits.

For most of us, where our conversion-initiation has been demonstrated by our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues), we then have to develop the fruit of the Spirit where we slowly change day by day.

 

[Biblicist]

Yes, thats my thinking and view. As I looked on the web found a church here in my home state, and had the exact statement I made above, they quoted scripture about "if anyone not having the Spirit of God in them", and then quoted "ye must be born again ..of the spirit", and how do you get born again."by being baptized in the Holy Ghost" otherwise you are none of his…..so I see their scriptures, but disagree with their logic that they came to that conclusion. For when Jesus told Nicedemous "ye must be born again of water and spirit" and then asked how he could not understand these things…..well, how would of Nicedemous have anyway of knowing about the BHS when it had not been poured out yet…..? Jesus would not of had any right to chastise him for something he could not of known about.

Was this church maybe a Onenes Pentecostal church?

So to me, being born again was talking about water baptism, and OUR spirit being born again unto the revelation of Christ being the Son of God, and not the BHS that Jesus would talk about later to come. And this is where I think they error in interpretation….but this is what I have come to see in the scriptures…..

The AoG and other classic-Pentecostal denominations recognise that all those who are Born Again have the Holy Spirit; where most would acknowledge that water Baptism is not obligatory though it is certainly desirable where water Baptism would be a prerequisite for church membership. The Aog would clarify their view by saying that all new initiates are first Baptised by Christ into the Holy Spirit whereas later on the Holy Spirit then fully indwells the Believer.

 

[Biblicist]

Lets acknowedge that we are splintering the topic into one of evidence of salvations vs evidence of the baptism of the holy spirit . salvation for now is agreed upon by all.by grace you are saved through faith.

But having been saved the lord desires to indwell us his now consecrated temple.
Evidence of the occurance of this is varied and i think subject to personal testimony of both the individual and the observer .however from a scriptural view point tongues is strongly pointed to as ocurring every time its recorded that believers were baptized in the Holy ghost.and then quoted as the evidence to all the apostles that the lord had accepted and acknowledged the gentiles also...ie~ how were they assured that gentiles were being baptised in the holy spirit,,it was obvious because "they spoke in other tongues. When the holy Spirit entered thier hearts.
We are the temple... The place where the spirit of God enters with his presence and puts his name...
If we were to look at it as a covenant of good faith... When we believe and confess outwardly what is on our hearts ..that jesus is lord, that is us spiritually signing the spiritual covenant... The baptism of the holy Spirit is God placing his royal seal on the other sign here line of that eternal spiritual document.
A momentous occasion in a believers life.

I will reply later . . . time has now gone belly up.

 

[dragongunner]

Was this church maybe a Onenes Pentecostal church?


The AoG and other classic-Pentecostal denominations recognise that all those who are Born Again have the Holy Spirit; where most would acknowledge that water Baptism is not obligatory though it is certainly desirable where water Baptism would be a prerequisite for church membership. The Aog would clarify their view by saying that all new initiates are first Baptised by Christ into the Holy Spirit whereas later on the Holy Spirit then fully indwells the Believer.

I can't say for sure on the church on the web that I found, but I'm assuming it is, since this belief seems to be prevalent with oneness groups. And some who I have encountered, I have my own thoughts on this but don't want to get away from the topic. Lots to learn from people, so many views and beliefs….its good to try and see where people are coming from, thanks for your posts.