SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A further work in Christian's life after conversion

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2003
Joplin, Missouri

 Re: Baptism of Holy Spirit

I have been reading all of the posts, and felt I had a few things to add for history sake, for everyone to think about, and for personal testimony.

KingJimmy is right in his knowledge of different pentecostal groups. The 20th century pentecostal movement in America has its roots in the ministry of Charles Parham and what happened in Topeka, KS in 1901 (I believe I have the year right). My great grandparents often spent time with the Parhams, and I grew up knowing many people who sat under his ministry. Parham was originally a Methodist. At that time they taught something called the second blessing which occurred subsequent to conversion and which gave the Christian the power to live a life of holiness by giving them an ability to overcome sin in their lives in a way they had never experienced since conversion. I have studied this experience through original writings from the Cane Ridge revival of 1800-1801 which was primarily a Methodist revival. I believe from my research that what they experienced is what we call the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but that move had grown very cold in the Methodist denomination as a whole by Parham's time, and the Methodist church as a whole was in a pretty sad state spiritually. I even read of some speaking in tongues at Cane Ridge. So, when Parham and those at Topeka received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, it seems they tacked it on the end of what they already knew and called it a third experience. Hence, as KingJimmy said, salvation, sanctification, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This was the way I was taught as I grew up.

Parham's doctrine of sanctification was a bit strange. He taught that one was justified of past sins at salvation, but was not yet born again. Upon consecrating his life and receiving the experience of sanctification one was then born again. These experiences could be years apart. So it was possible, by his teaching, to be justified but not born again.

William Seymour was one of Parham's pupils in his school. Seymour founded the work a Azusa street. As the work progressed a man by the name of Durham fell into a doctrinal disagreement with Seymour over the issue of sanctification. People called it the finished work doctrine as he taught that one was justified, born again and sanctified, or set apart for God's use, at salvation. To him, it was all one and the same experience. He taught that one walked out sanctification as a progressive work.

The two, Durham and Seymour, parted ways. Most triniterian pentecostal holiness groups (Not the oneness groups) spring from Seymour and Parham's work. The Assemblies of God and other similar works came out of Durham's ministry. (Hope that answers your question Brenda) Obviously I grew up in the former and there was still much distrust of the latter. I was taught it was sin to attend movies, for men and women to swim together (mixed bathing it was called), etc. It was after I was a teenager that girls at our church camp near Baxter Springs were allowed to wear anything other than dresses, and then only jeans for recreation for two or three hours in the afternoons.

Parham and most other pentecostals taught and still teach that speaking in tongues is the Biblical evidence of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The reason for this is an examination of the five instances (believe I have the number right) recorded in scripture of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit. In three of them people immediately spoke in tongues. In two of them tongues is not mention. In one of those two instances there was something outward that happened by implication as someone saw what happened and wanted to pay money for the same thing. It may have been tongues and it may not have been.

I can give you some history of tongues and my own personal experience. I have seen the copies of newspaper clippings from 1901. Language experts attended some of Parham's meetings and documented several known languages that were unknown to the speakers including one lady (Agnes Osmann sp?) who spoke in several distinct Chinese dialects. I have heard many first hand accounts from people I knew well who delivered a message in tongues and an interpretation as in 1 Cor. and had the contend verified by people who were in the audience for whom that tongue was their native language. My own great grandfather preached an entire sermon in Spanish while in Mexico. He did not even know how to ask where the bathroom was, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he preached in another tongue.

I don't believe that speaking in tongues is a requirement for being baptized in the Holy Spirit. I do believe that praying in tongues devotionally is important. I have seen the gift of tongues and interpretation in operation as well as the other seven gifts listed in 1 Cor. I believe there is a lot of evidence in the life of a believer of Holy Spirit baptism that is not speaking in tongues. But, I do believe that one who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit can and eventually will speak in tongues.

I was born again when I was 8 and my life was radically transformed. I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit when I was 18. Due to my teaching on sanctification, I believed that I had to reach some arbitrary level of holiness before I qualified to be filled with the Holy Spirit. So, whenever I would ask the Lord to fill me with His Holy Spirit, I would immediately be condemned over some little thing I had done or failed to do. As a result, I was never able to receive in faith. It was then that a minister made me to understand that I did not need to have a certain standard of holiness in order to receive the Holy Spirit, but I needed the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling me in order to have a power over sin that I never had before. It was this revelation that caused faith to come and I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I did speak in tongues immediately. I also felt as though I wanted to sing out praise to the Lord. So I began to sing, but it was a melody I did not know in a language I did not know. There was a friend of mine that received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the same time. I noticed that I was not singing alone. She and I sang together a heavenly duet. Same melody, same words, both unknown to us. Recall Paul said, I will sing in the spirit, I will sing with my understanding, I will pray in the spirit, I will pray with my understanding. Praying in tongues is a daily part of my walk with the Lord, and from it I receive great edification as well as pray in faith over things I don't know how to pray for in the natural. But tongues are not the focus, nor were they ever supposed to by. The purpose is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus said, the Holy Spirit has been with you but will be in you. I have had a power to live a holy life since that time that I did not have before. I have had revelation of the Word of God since that time that I did not have before. I have had God speak to me and direct my steps more clearly since then than ever happened before.

I firmly believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit (receiving the indwelling presence of the comforter spoken of in John 14) is a second definite work separate from and subsequent to salvation. Acts 19 records that the people who had not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit were already believers, were born again, but had not yet been water baptized and had not even heard that there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that Acts 1-2 and the extensive teaching in 1 Cor. 12-14 were for a specific time period during which the original 12 apostles were alive and working.

I agree that there are those in the pentecostal ranks that don't live what they profess. But, I don't think that any more true there than in any other group or denomination you could pick out. When people who name the name of Christ don't walk the walk of Christ it sours many to the gospel. Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat. In the end they will have to answer for their own hypocrisy and for those that they led astray. In the meantime I pray both for them and others to be born again.

Well that is my perspective for you to consider, and I hope some answers to some questions.

Blessings.

Travis






_________________
Travis

 2010/3/9 13:56Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Re:

Hi krautfrau...

Quote:

Classical holiness teaching, which is in opposition to the Pentecostal view...


Actually, most of the early Pentecostal congregations during the 20th Century placed a strong emphasis on classical holiness teaching.
Quote:

Unknown languages were spoken at Pentecost but that was specific for the time, where Babel was reversed.


Again, I disagree with any sort of cessationist view. Three of the four subsequent times in which people are declared to have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts mention "speaking in tongues." I Corinthians (including chapters 12 through 14) was written a couple of decades following the Christian "day of Pentecost" (Acts 2:1-4) -- but "tongues" (and also, [i]prophecy[/i]) was still included as a gift in an epistle written by Paul (who was converted [u]after[/u] Pentecost) to subsequent believers who were probably not in Jerusalem for that first Holy Ghost baptism.
Quote:

One knows when one has been baptised because of the cleanliness felt within and the heart that praises God 100%. One then can live the overcoming life, filled with joy no mater what the circumstances. The proness to wander has been healed and we are now a pillar in the temple of the Lord God, no more going in and out but staying firm with the abiding presence of God with us.


I agree...but this also sounds quite a bit like an attribute of real conversion. I remember the new life-beginning event in which I was saved. It wasn't just the "cleanliness" that I "felt" -- it was the realization that I had given my life back to the One who created me...and that I, a mere teenage boy, did truly know and fellowship with the God who created the entire universe. It was amazing...and definitive. However, I wasn't baptized with water until later...and baptized with the Holy Spirit until even later. Yet the baptism of the Holy Spirit was very real and (at least, in my situation) accompanied by speaking in tongues. I am not embarrassed of this fact, but I do not desire to gloat in it either (and hardly mention it here on SermonIndex so as not to create controversy).

I do agree that my walk with Christ was strengthened by this subsequent experience. I suppose that I never planned on straying from the faith even before it though.


_________________
Christopher

 2010/3/9 14:46Profile









 Re:

Travis

That was very interesting to me thankyou. I am very interested indeed in this period of history and what went on between the rival fractions of the holiness movement and Pentecostalism and especially the differing views of 2 or 3 subsequent blessings..

It is fascinating to hear first hand stories from someones great grandparents - wonderful.

You have not said what you mean by holiness, most I speak to say it is the ability to resist intentional sin, is this your stance?

But anyway, the emphasis on holy living seemed to fade in Pentecostalism quickly when tongue speaking became more widespread. I wonder why you think this is?

I think that Pentecostals come in for more criticism over how they live because it is to be expected that those who claim a practise which supposedly strengthens faith should show some fruit. One woukld expect more gifts to produce more fruit.

Thanks for giving your testimony. In what way has tongue speaking enhanced your ministry?

Brenda

 2010/3/9 14:56
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3407
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: A further work in Christian's life after conversion


*** It is important to see that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit Himself, as a Person, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In Romans 11:29, Paul tells us that the [i]gifts ... of God are irrevocable[/i]. In other words, once God has given us a gift, He never takes it back. We are free to use it, not to use it, or to misuse it. But even if we misuse it, God does not take it back. Otherwise it would not be a genuine gift; it would only be a conditional loan.

It is a fact that people do misuse gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul provides a clear example in I Corinthians 13.1:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

Obviously the Holy Spirit Himself does not become a [i]clanging cymbal. [/i]But the gift of speaking in tongues - when misused - can become an empty, discordant noise. Unfortunately this often happens in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.

I believe it is possible to misuse other spiritual gifts - such as a word of knowledge or a gift of healing. This can happen when a person uses a spiritual gift to achieve a result or promote a movement which is not in harmony with the will of God. One obvious misuse would be for personal gain.***

Taken from Derek Prince’s “Protection from Deception” book.

----------------------------

I just wanted to add that even though tongues and other gifts have been misused, it's no sign we should throw the baby out with the bathwater (speaking of any gift not just tongues). We need to seek the Lord for HIS truth on this matter and love the truth we receive from Him whether it agrees with our theological doctrine or our church's doctrine or not. It's most important that we "receive the love of the truth."

God bless you all!


_________________
Lisa

 2010/3/9 17:04Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2003
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Brenda:

Many have tried to define holiness in terms of concrete outward actions, and in these groups the definitions are as varied as the different "rules" upheld by these groups as the "standard of holiness". The better you keep the rules, the more holy you are. The more holy you are the more of God you can have. It is ceasing to rely on God's grace and placing yourself back under law. Others define holiness in terms of how good you are at not doing something. This is where you speak of not committing intentional sin. I don't see this as the definition of holiness either. I believe Romans 6:19-22 defines for us what holiness is. It is the fruit of having been made righteous by the blood of Jesus and living a life surrendered to God. Holiness is not something that a person who is not born again can "do". It is not something we can do in our own flesh, and people who are not born again can only walk in the flesh. It is not something a Christian can do in his or her own power. It is the fruit of righteousness and is the natural outflow of who we are through Jesus Christ and it can be lived only insomuch as we are able to live outside of our own ability and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Another way to put it is that holiness is the fruit that is borne by the root of righteousness. Holiness is coming into agreement with God and with His word in every area of our lives. It is what naturally flows from our lives when we walk in the Spirit. Jesus said the through the Holy Spirit we would be given power to be witnesses, but the original language says martyrs. This may be literal, but remember that Paul taught that we were to be living sacrifices. Martyrs who have laid their lives on the altar no matter what. This is holiness.

As to the role of praying in tongues in my personal life an how it enhances ministry, I can tell you best with some scripture on the matter. 1 Cor. 14:4 says that in praying in tongues we edify ourselves. At times when things are tough or hard to deal with, or when I am tempted to be discouraged, I will pray in tongues worshiping the Lord more than usual. In 1 Cor. 14:2 we find that when we pray in tongues we speak mysteries. Couple that with Paul's explanation in 1 Cor. 2 of how through the Holy Spirit we can know the things of the mind of God, we can see that praying in tongues can be very powerful. There are times when I don't know how to pray over a situation in the natural. By faith I pray in tongues over the situation knowing that I can pray and intercede, bypassing my limited intellect, and agree with the Holy Spirit over the matter. I have prayed from time to time that God would interpret to me what I am praying, similar to how an interpretation to a message in tongues corporately would come forth. I have had times when, as I prayed in tongues over a situation, the Holy Spirit revealed to me what I was praying.

I think to say that holy living in pentecostalism faded as tongues increased is based on quite a few assumptions and perceptions. First, one must assume that tongues are some kind of "new" thing that entered with the modern pentecostal movement. I don't think that the case. Over the centuries there have always been men and women filled with the spirit who spoke in tongues. I would agree that more people have been brought into pentecost in the 20th century than ever before. Second one must be able to examine the lives of all those who speak in tongues and truly see them as God does, which cannot be done. I would say that if you looked from the outside at any denomination over the last 100 years you would have to say that the standard of holiness has declined. This is not a pentecostal thing, but a general body of Christ thing. I don't disparage the church, but I do believe we (the body of Christ in general) have become a product of our culture as a whole more than a product of walking close to God. If anything, I have seen a greater external standard of holiness among the pentecostals I have known than I have seen in most other denominational divisions I have experienced. I am not trying to compare denominations. I believe denominations are not God's construct anyway. I am just saying that I have trouble answering the question of "why that is" because I am not so sure it really "is".

By the way. Many confuse praying in tongues as a believer baptized in the Holy Spirit with the gift of tongues that must be accompanied by interpretation listed with the other seven in 1 Cor. I don't believe they are the same.

Travis.


_________________
Travis

 2010/3/9 17:08Profile
mguldner
Member



Joined: 2009/12/4
Posts: 1860
Kansas

 Re:

Quote:
William Seymour was one of Parham's pupils in his school. Seymour founded the work a Azusa street. As the work progressed a man by the name of Durham fell into a doctrinal disagreement with Seymour over the issue of sanctification.



William Seymour was a pupil of Parham but when Parham visited Seymour in CA he rebuked him strongly for mixing two races causing Seymour to question the true Salvation of Parham and his baptism.


I believe the true dispute was between Parham and Durham, I actually remember reading in my studies that Parham would pray God would kill the one that was wrong, When Durham died first Parham declared himself the winner of this argument.

I also agree that praying in tongues can be a great devotional thing and I also have seen tongues and interpretation as far as 1 Corithians is concerned. Is speaking in tongues required for salvation? No. I will attest that it has helped me prayer life to pray in the Spirit.

I am just wanting to see God's presence to be so strong on he pulpits of America that even the holiest of men fear and tremble before God. This won't end the blasphemy we see today but will hopefully cause repentance. Thanks so much for your post it was encouraging.

God Bless,
Matthew


_________________
Matthew Guldner

 2010/3/9 18:02Profile
JB1968
Member



Joined: 2009/8/31
Posts: 416
Ohio USA

 Re:

I am of the Holiness persuation.

A chorus says,
"Second blessing holiness
victory within.
Sanctifying power,
burns out inbred sin.
Sceptics say it cannot be,
but I know tis true.
What the Lord has done for me,
He will do for you!"


_________________
James

 2010/3/9 20:43Profile









 Re: perfect

Lysa, Paul was speaking about unbelieving Jews here, verse 28 not the church. He was saying that God will not remove the gifts and calling He gave to the Jews in time past. In actual fact, unbelieving Jews often have a greater reverence for God than believers and for example will not speak the name God, saying G-d instead.

I do not agree with the Cessationist interpretation of 1Cor 13:8. They say that 'that which is perfect' is the Bible, that once the Bible had been canonised, prophecies knowledge and foreign languages would not be needed. I do not believe that God removed the gifts He gave but that tongues were a special case. The Greek word for cease is a different word than the word used for vanish away (AV words)when He spoke about prophecies and knowledge.

Verse 9 tells us that knowledge and prophecy did not vanish, but they became 'full' once the perfect came whereas before they were partial. Paul gives us an example of this in verse 11 so that we understand his meaning that they did not vanish like tongues would, when he says that his understanding as a child was partial but when he became a man, then this knowledge expanded, became the understanding of a grown-up.

Now the charismatic understading of perfect, as you know, is that it is Christ. When Christ appears then tongues will no longer be needed and knowledge and prophecy will not be needed. But this interpretation ignores the difference in the Greek words for what happens to them. And it does not take into account v 11 where Paul shows us what he means. And also, the Greek word for the perfect is not the word you use to denote a person - it is perfect in the sense of a thing.

Now the holiness understanding of this verse, is that the perfect is the coming of the Light, the baptism, the crisis or second blessing.

When this happens, prophecy and knowledge cease being in part, the child becomes the man v 11 the man sees God face to face, knows God as God has known Him and childish things are put away and we become full grown men of full stature. Their imparted holiness means that Christ can dwell within them though the Holy Spirit in His fullness.

But it says that tongues do cease - they do not end their partial state. Paul helped us to see that the case for them is not the same as knowledge and prophecy in case we become Cessationists.

However we are going to understand this, we must accept the fact that throughout chuch history until the middle of the 19the Century, they were mostly unheard of and not involved in the main body of the church nor the great revivals. The saints we all revere like Wesley, Edwards et all did not speak in tongues and they were renounced by Wesley and others whenever they came in to revivals and most of the time they occured in groups on the fringe of the church and also in non Christian religions. They were renounced by the traditional holiness churches like the Nazarenes.

Well we must put our own understanding on that, and at the begining of the expansion of tongue speaking, people thought that it was a sign that the end had come and Christ was returning soon so languages were given to evangelise the untouched world but it became the tongue speaking we recognise later when it was seen that Christ did not return.

I also find it significant that the church has never been in such a low state during the previous century and today, where the subject of holiness and how to achieve it are so badly misunderstood.

Well these are my thoughts after studying the subject at length and asking God to grant the gift to me if it was a genuine gift.

I accept that others think differently and interpret the scriptures I have mentioned in a different way and have had experience of what they believe and so I do not wish to argue about the matter. We will know the truth one day.

blessings
Brenda

 2010/3/10 4:45









 Re:

Travis

Thanks for your answer and I agree with you that holiness has often equalled legality in the church rather than living a life surrendered to God as you say and that we cannot 'do' it with our flesh.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over tongues - I can only give my own understanding from my spiritual light and my study of scripture. It would help rather though if tongue speakers could agree among themselves about it - and I have not found this so far.

I don't know if I can agree with you though regarding the behaviour of Pentecostals v the rest of the church. All of the cases of falling into sexual sin and fraud have come from that part of the church. Now I am not saying that this is the truth - that they are less holy. All I am saying is that all of the cases I have heard about have been high profile charismatic leaders. I am open to be proven wrong on this if anyone has evidence.

Good to hear that JB1968!

blessings
Brenda

 2010/3/10 5:09
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3407
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: Brenda

Brenda wrote:

Quote:
I accept that others think differently and interpret the scriptures I have mentioned in a different way and have had experience of what they believe and so I do not wish to argue about the matter. We will know the truth one day.


Brenda,

Why do people write a long post and then end it with "so I do not wish to argue about the matter?" (huge grin) I'm just kidding with you!! But on the up-side, I am glad in your graciousness you accept others like me who think differently and interpret the Scriptures way differently than you because I in no way, shape or form agree with anything you wrote!! (very friendly grin) I'm sorry but your whole last post read like the "why I don't believe the baptism is for today" book; it's like you guys all study or read the same book or something.

That's ok because I'm not here to argue with you! And I apologize, I do agree with you on one thing... "We will know the truth one day!"

God bless you Brenda


_________________
Lisa

 2010/3/10 5:58Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy