Indwelling of the Spirit?

[Biblicist]

So if no apparent 'bestowment of gifts' is present in a believer's life is it the AOG view that that beliver is not a true Christian? I 've been told that before by a former colleague who was a pastor but didn't now if it was that just that individual's interpretation or a blanket denominational doctrine.

Those who come under the banner of being classic-Pentecostals, such with that of the AoG, they have always recognised that everyone who confesses Jesus as Lord is Saved.

The more extreme Oneness Pentecostal groups certainly believe that one-must-speak in tongues-to-be-saved. Unlike that of North America, the Oneness groups here in Australia are so insignificant that they barely come onto the radar.

 

[Francis Drake]

As I haven't read through this thread, I trust that someone has already pointed out that this is the position of the Assemblies of God, where it reflects the old classic-Pentecostal understanding of the two-stage reception of the Holy Spirit; this is known as the Subsequence viewpoint - of which I disagree with.

You might disagree with the two stages of receiving the Holy Spirit, but we have one profound example of that.

Matt3v16And immediately, having been baptized, Jesus went up from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and alighting upon Him.

Jesus the man obviously had the Holy Spirit within him from conception, but did no miracles or healings prior to being baptised in the Holy Spirit. ie. Joseph, his earthly father, had obviously died at some stage, why didn't Jesus heal him?

In other words, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not about being born again, but as Jesus said, about receiving power to do the works of the Lord. And that also obviously applied to himself.

Acts1v8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Take note, Jesus did not tell them they would receive new birth when the Holy Spirit came upon them, because they were already God's children born of the Spirit.

 

[Biblicist]

You might disagree with the two stages of receiving the Holy Spirit, but we have one profound example of that.

Matt3v16And immediately, having been baptized, Jesus went up from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and alighting upon Him.

Jesus the man obviously had the Holy Spirit within him from conception, but did no miracles or healings prior to being baptised in the Holy Spirit. ie. Joseph, his earthly father, had obviously died at some stage, why didn't Jesus heal him?

In other words, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not about being born again, but as Jesus said, about receiving power to do the works of the Lord. And that also obviously applied to himself.

Acts1v8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Take note, Jesus did not tell them they would receive new birth when the Holy Spirit came upon them, because they were already God's children born of the Spirit.

Even though I have now come to what was a very difficult position, in that about five years back, after some serious investigation into the matter, I came to the painful realisation that there was no basis for the subsequence position; which as I said, came around not as a quick choice or by expedience but through a painful acknowledgment on my part.

Having now said this, I certainly have a lot of sympathy for this understanding, as there were undoubtedly millions who understandably viewed their own experience as one of subsequence, which is what I did myself.

With regard to the two passages that you quoted, I had never viewed these two unique passages as referring to a two-stage reception of the Spirit, not even from the beginning; this helped to offset the pain that I went through with my acknowledgment that the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence was incorrect. I now refer to myself as being a non-classic Pentecostal, in that I still view that each and every new Believer should be taught that they can speak in tongues (pray in the Spirit) but not that it is necessary for Salvation or the only way that we can say that someone has been Baptised in the Holy Spirit, but it is of course the most reliable way to observe someone's Salvation, which is how the Council at Jerusalem excepted the Gentiles into the Church.

But again, as I mentioned, I still have a lot of sympathy for the position as I can understand why many see it this way.

From what I understand, when it comes to Ecumenical dialogue between classic Pentecostals such as the AoG and the other Denominations, at this point of time the question appears to be put to rest as even many Pentecostal scholars no longer adhere to this perspective.

 

[Major1]

Yeah; I do tend to be long winded.

At the same time, where these issues are concerned, there is a lot to be long winded about...

Acts 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

Lol

By the way - that is one beautiful family you have there!

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each - our stead!

Thank you and may the Lord bless you on the Palm Sunday.

I only said that as it seems most people are reluctant to read long postings such as the one you did. They just tune it out and stop reading and a lot of really good stuff is wasted.

It is actually a proven fact that a sermon is only effective for about 20 minutes. After that the normal church member looses interest and falls to sleep.

 

[Francis Drake]

Even though I have now come to what was a very difficult position, in that about five years back, after some serious investigation into the matter, I came to the painful realisation that there was no basis for the subsequence position; which as I said, came around not as a quick choice or by expedience but through a painful acknowledgment on my part.

Having now said this, I certainly have a lot of sympathy for this understanding, as there were undoubtedly millions who understandably viewed their own experience as one of subsequence, which is what I did myself.

Not trying to be rude, but squirming and handwringing over a doctrine neither adds nor subtracts on whether something is true or false.

With regard to the two passages that you quoted, I had never viewed these two unique passages as referring to a two-stage reception of the Spirit, not even from the beginning;

Well maybe you should look at them again.
They are by no means unique, and they clearly demonstrate the difference between being reborn of the Spirit of God, and being filled with the Spirit of God and power.

My experience matches what these verses tell us. I was filled with the Holy Spirit at least ten years after being born again by the Spirit of God.

this helped to offset the pain that I went through with my acknowledgment that the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence was incorrect.

More handwringing, keep it up as long as you like, it won't alter my position.

I now refer to myself as being a non-classic Pentecostal, in that I still view that each and every new Believer should be taught that they can speak in tongues (pray in the Spirit) but not that it is necessary for Salvation or the only way that we can say that someone has been Baptised in the Holy Spirit,

My position on any subject is based on scripture, and my experience walking with the Lord. It's not based on what a particular church group believes.

(tongues) but it is of course the most reliable way to observe someone's Salvation, which is how the Council at Jerusalem excepted the Gentiles into the Church.

Given that the infilling of the spirit is generally a second event, it is folly to base anyone's eternal state on the evidence of tongues.

But again, as I mentioned, I still have a lot of sympathy for the position as I can understand why many see it this way.

From what I understand, when it comes to Ecumenical dialogue between classic Pentecostals such as the AoG and the other Denominations, at this point of time the question appears to be put to rest as even many Pentecostal scholars no longer adhere to this perspective.

I've no idea who these people are, but their views will make no difference to what I read in scripture and experience in life.

 

[Chris V++]

Thanks everyone for having this discussion.

The more extreme Oneness Pentecostal groups certainly believe that one-must-speak in tongues-to-be-saved. Unlike that of North America, the Oneness groups here in Australia are so insignificant that they barely come onto the radar

Provincialism may influence what a denomination may or may not decide to emphasize. Today I think the substitute pastor at our church tried to subliminally connect the mob mentality that led the crowd to quickly turn against Jesus to the anti gun demonstrations carried out all over our country yesterday.

My experience matches what these verses tell us. I was filled with the Holy Spirit at least ten years after being born again by the Spirit of God.

I hope you don't mine me asking but was there a specific experience, exercise, study, or ritual that prompted the being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' independently from being born again?

Something in church today made me think of this passage in context of this discussion:
Romans 8 26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Is 'the Spirit himself [who] interecedes for us through wordless groans' somehow connected with the 'tongues of angels.' If so, could this be happening anyway in every believers spirit weather or not he or she gives a audible utterance that one would recognize as 'tongues of angels.'

 

[Francis Drake]

I hope you don't mine me asking but was there a specific experience, exercise, study, or ritual that prompted the being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' independently from being born again?

I think "no" to all of the above.
I was born again as a child alone in my bedroom. Nothing to do with church or parents.
The presence of the Lord came beside me and I don't know how to describe it except I "gave him my heart".

Some time after that the Lord spoke to me in the street and told me that he didn't live in churches, but did live in my heart, and that going to heaven wasn't about people being good or bad, but that He, God, had made the way.

I might add that this was with no evangelism or church input.

I was completely alone in my beliefs and​

had no idea what any of it meant, or that I should do anything about it. I just got on with my life.

I was in my mid 20s before I heard the gospel for the first time, and

I wasn't in the least bit interested, until I realised they were talking about the God I already knew. I then made a full commitment to serve the Lord.

Some time after that, I went to a fellowship that was led by the Holy Spirit with the prophecy, visions, words of knowledge, tongues, etc. in use.
It was a very powerful and tangible experience although there was no particular preaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A short time after that, the gift of tongues was released within me at home. The key was obviously being among people who were abundantly filled with the Holy Spirit. I guess it was a bit like the apostles in Cornelius's house, it just happened that way.​

Something in church today made me think of this passage in context of this discussion:
Romans 8 26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Is 'the Spirit himself [who] interecedes for us through wordless groans' somehow connected with the 'tongues of angels.' If so, could this be happening anyway in every believers spirit weather or not he or she gives a audible utterance that one would recognize as 'tongues of angels.'

I don't agree with this.
Americans speak in English (even if a little mangled) Austrians speak German as do the Germans themselves, Italians speak Italian, etc. The point being that these are all discernible languages of the tongue.
From many sources, including the scriptures, we know that angels talk among themselves, to God and to men.
It therefore makes no sense that Tongues of angels would be anything other than what it says. The normal language of the tongue that angels use.

 

[Biblicist]

Not trying to be rude, but squirming and handwringing over a doctrine neither adds nor subtracts on whether something is true or false.

My original comment is usually something that need not be commented on as remarks such as mine are provided as a means of saying that my decision was not based on the mere whim of some person in my local congregation, but that it was made after a lot of Scriptural investigation - but it does not mean that my change of opinion is either right or wrong.

Well maybe you should look at them again.

As I am probably one of the most well read individuals on this forum with regard to this matter then I can probably have confidence in my conclusion.

They are by no means unique, and they clearly demonstrate the difference between being reborn of the Spirit of God, and being filled with the Spirit of God and power.

The problem with quoting, or should I say, with the misrepresentation of a few passages from within Acts with regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, is that the method of which the classic-Pentecostal employs them is in stark opposition to Pauline theology.

This has forced scholars from within the classic-Pentecostal fold to develop what is called Lukan theology, where they oddly pit this contrived form of theology against that of Paul's theology within the Epistles, this is known as Pauline theology; this gives rise to the problem that they have now devised a canon-within-a-canon.

My experience matches what these verses tell us. I was filled with the Holy Spirit at least ten years after being born again by the Spirit of God.

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, we have both had similar experiences along with those of millions of others, certainly since the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's and 70's. But as I said, even though our subsequent experience of being able to speak in tongues can be something that we will never forget, this is not the outcome of a further Baptism of the Spirit but where we are able to rejoice with allowing the Holy Spirit to pray though us to the Father.

More handwringing, keep it up as long as you like, it won't alter my position.

As I said earlier, you need to understand how people use this type of language!!!

My position on any subject is based on scripture, and my experience walking with the Lord. It's not based on what a particular church group believes.

During the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's and 70's, the vast majority of new charismatics embraced the classic-Pentecostal understanding that the BHS was one of subsequence, but through further investigation in the Word, the majority of charismatics moved away from this old understanding to where they generally recognise that the BHS is soteriological and not of subsequence.

Given that the infilling of the spirit is generally a second event, it is folly to base anyone's eternal state on the evidence of tongues.

I noticed that you said "the infilling of the spirit is generally a second event" which implies that you recognise that it can also be soteriological (received at the moment of the new Birth). As many individuals also receive the BHS with the evidence of speaking in tongues at the moment of their Salvation, then the position of subsequence is probably best defined as being limited to only a few denominations.

I've no idea who these people are, but their views will make no difference to what I read in scripture and experience in life.

The scholars that I referred to are those individuals who classic-Pentecostal denominations have recognised as being theological spokesmen for their particular denominations.

Edit: I failed to insert a leading {quote}

 

[Francis Drake]

My original comment is usually something that need not be commented on as remarks such as mine are provided as a means of saying that my decision was not based on the mere whim of some person in my local congregation, but that it was made after a lot of Scriptural investigation - but it does not mean that my change of opinion is either right or wrong.

I understand, but was just winding you up a little.
I imagine Peter had a little handwringing trying to explain himself to the elders at Jerusalem as to how he ended up in the house of a filthy gentile.

The problem with quoting, or should I say, with the misrepresentation of a few passages from within Acts with regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, is that the method of which the classic-Pentecostal employs them is in stark opposition to Pauline theology.

You'll have to explain that as I see no misrepresentation at all. The facts are straight forward and so plain for all to see.

During the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's and 70's, the vast majority of new charismatics embraced the classic-Pentecostal understanding that the BHS was one of subsequence, but through further investigation in the Word, the majority of charismatics moved away from this old understanding to where they generally recognise that the BHS is soteriological and not of subsequence.

Further investigation of the word over the last 40 odd years just reinforces my position.

I noticed that you said "the infilling of the spirit is generally a second event" which implies that you recognise that it can also be soteriological (received at the moment of the new Birth). As many individuals also receive the BHS with the evidence of speaking in tongues at the moment of their Salvation, then the position of subsequence is probably best defined as being limited to only a few denominations.

That it's limited to only a few denominations is hardly surprising when the vast majority of denominations insist that the gifts of the Spirit ceased nearly 2000 years ago.
This turns the infilling of the Holy Spirit into an invisible and powerless event, making it dead easy to teach as synonymous with becoming a Christian.

It just has to be believed like Catholics are expected to believe their communion wine changes into real blood, and wafer into real flesh. No evidence is available either way.

Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that there are two events which may be separate or concurrent.

 

[Chris V++]

It was a very powerful and tangible experience although there was no particular preaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A short time after that, the gift of tongues was released within me at home. The key was obviously being among people who were abundantly filled with the Holy Spirit. I guess it was a bit like the apostles in Cornelius's house, it just happened that way.

I've never had a similar experience, although I 'm sure my spirit does groan wordlessly, probably mangled American groans I know I experienced my own very tangible born again experience and the synchronic events and seeming prearrangement of circumstances preceding it which compelled me to believe, and that no one could ever persuade me it was a delusion or somehow incomplete. Plus I swear I changed physically. It felt like a parasite was ripped off of my soul, if that makes sense. All in one moment.

 

[CaspianSails]

'When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money ' Acts 8: 18
Years ago I heard a radio pastor state that Acts 8:18 should be interpreted that an actual Apostle had to lay on hands to give over the Spirit, and nowhere is it written that the Spirit was transferable. In other words, a recipient of the Spirit received from an Apostle laying on of hands couldn't then transfer the Spirit that to a third party. This pastor stated the apostles (by the indwelt Spirit) were able to perform miracles, speak in different languages etc., and that today there is no actual Spirit indwelling or possessing the believer.

Same pastor also had what seems like an unconventional interpretation of this scripture:
'Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' Acts 2:38

His interpretation was that the 'gift' of the Holy Spirit is 'salvation,' and that the Holy Spirit isn't the 'gift.'
He backed up this position with:
' For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God..." Ephesians 2:8
His point was that the 'salvation' is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then today I heard a popular radio pastor state there is a difference between being 'filled with the Spirit' and the Spirit dwelling within. You can have the an indwelling of the Holy Spirit but at the same time not be filled with the Spirit.

I know at times I can 'feel' the Spirit and especially in worship service. I also know the conscience convicts. I've heard pastors say that conviction of conscience is evidence of the indwelling spirit. I don't mean to start a debate. Thanks for looking.

It is hard to know where to start so I will start here. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Christ bore the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for mankind. Salvation is only through Christ. When one accepts Christ and His sacrifice one is made righteous, not by any act of him or herself but by the imputed (underserved yet given) righteousness of Christ. The Bible says all our righteousness is like filthy rags. Faith is the gift of God that enables one to know or believe in Christs atonement. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer and at the point the Holy Spirit indwells you, ie at the point of salvation, the now Christian is fully equipped by the Holy Spirit. One is indwelt by or filled by the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit is in you, you are filled with the Holy Spirit. One need not have hands laid on you to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:44. Ask yourself during worship do you feel the Holy Spirit or is it emotion brought on by worship of God? If the Holy Spirit is in you He will bring change. You will begin as you die to your self to demonstrate the fruits of the Holy Spirit. You will become alive to Christ and you will die to your self and Christ becomes not only savior but also Lord of your life. That is how you know the Holy Spirit is in you.