|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 6, 2009 22:45:53 GMT -5
Don't know if you guys have covered this or not, but what do you all consider the meaning of being baptized in the Holy Ghost? And what are the tongues of the book of Acts? Are the gifts for today or did they stop with the Apostles?
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 8, 2009 19:51:47 GMT -5
Surely someone has some ideas about this subject. I know most calvinists reject the gifts as being for today, and some holiness preachers practice them, but i was curious about the governmental view of the this subject. I read Finney's autobiography (Holy Spirit revivals)years ago and he said he was baptized in the Spirit, but didn't elaborate on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 8, 2009 22:40:26 GMT -5
Some moral government theology teachers believed that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit at conversion, others moral government teachers believed that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit after conversion during a second experience, other moral government teachers believed that God could fill a person with the Holy Spirit whenever He wants, even before a person is saved at all, such as in John the Baptist.
I believe that I was either filled at conversion, or so closely to it that I cannot distinguish between conversion and the baptism of the Spirit. It may be different for other people. I also believe that I have received multiple spiritual anointings since my initial baptism, where the Spirit comes strongly upon me during a sermon or during an experience, or after or during prayer, etc.
I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. But I do not speak in tongues. I am a pentecostal like Leonard Ravenhill, who also did not believe everyone who is baptized in the Holy Spirit speaks with tongues. He actually helped form a holiness pentecostal denomination in England who believed that tongues was not the only evidence of the Holy Spirit's baptism. The surest proof of the Holy Spirit in your life is a holy life. The Spirit, in Acts, also gave men boldness to preach the word of God.
I believe in all the gifts today. God still wants to heal people. God still wants to speak to people. God still wants to deliver people. Some gifts are given to some people. I don't believe that all gifts, or any one particular gift, is given to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by biblegeek on Feb 9, 2009 0:37:53 GMT -5
Jesse - I've studied this topic at length and have come to the same conclusion as you have. I didn't realize that Ravenhill believed that way as well. I have his book 'Revival Praying' sitting here on my desk. Absolutely one of my favorite authors of all times.
Could you clarify what you mean by the following: "I also believe that I have received multiple spiritual anointings since my initial baptism, where the Spirit comes strongly upon me during a sermon or during an experience, or after or during prayer, etc."
I know what it's like for the Holy Spirit to work through me when preaching, praying, etc. I've heard many people say, "wow... that was annointed...(not necessarily to me)". But when I consider what the word means in greek, it makes me wonder why we/I use it. khree'-o Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint.
Have you ever pondered this? If so, I'd like to hear your 'take' on this.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Feb 10, 2009 1:13:23 GMT -5
The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a separate and distinct experience (gift) from conversion. Acts 1:4,5, 2:38, 8:14 -17, 19:1-6 I do believe that someone can be baptized with the Holy Ghost at conversion, since that was the case with the household of Cornelius, Acts: 11:13 "And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14: Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
The initial evidence of being baptized with the Holy Ghost is speaking in other tongues as the spirit gives utterance, Acts 2:4, 10:45,46 19:6 Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46: For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" The evidence that the gentiles received the same Holy Ghost as the Apostles was the fact that they spoke in other tongues. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a Gift that endues the believer with power and boldness to more effectively do the work of the ministry as described all throughout the new testament. Luke 24: 49, Acts 1:8, 4:31. The Holy Ghost is the anointing and unction that we all need if we are going to preach and teach God's word with divine power.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 10, 2009 9:59:01 GMT -5
My denomination believes the praying in tongues was meant for the Apostles only and people who pray in tongues now are simply using mind over matter. However, if this elevates them, to a point where ti helps their spiritual walk, I see no harm in this. One can be spirit filled without speaking in tongues and to say otherwise is Christian mythology.
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 10, 2009 11:45:20 GMT -5
FS My denomination believes the praying in tongues was meant for the Apostles only and people who pray in tongues now are simply using mind over matter. However, if this elevates them, to a point where ti helps their spiritual walk, I see no harm in this. One can be spirit filled without speaking in tongues and to say otherwise is Christian mythology. I'm curious as to why speaking in tongues was only for the Apostles? Didn't Paul teach the church the proper use of tongues in 1Cor. 12 -14? And how would just speaking gibberish help anyone's spiritual walk? I know lots of people who supposedly pray in tongues who don't live a holy life, and then vise-versa, Christians who live holy without praying in tongues, that's why i would agree with Jesse and Mr. Ravenhill about being baptized in the Spirit without speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? d o all speak with tongues? do all interpret?) Just curious, that's all, not trying to bash you or start an argument. thanks
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 10, 2009 12:14:21 GMT -5
I don;t know for sure, but it was only my thoughts. It can be a good thing, but can be a bad thing. I have known some former Pentecostals who shifted to the Baptist church who claimed they just pretended to do the tongue thin to fit in and felt no inspiration from God to do so.
I would think baptism of the holy spirit could mean any number of things or receiving any number of spiritual gifts. Speaking in tongues to me, seems questionable.
Could it really happen today if God wanted?Well, yes, but I still seem to think speaking in tongues today is a man made fabrication.
Who is arguing? I am glad to discuss this and hear more on your views.
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 10, 2009 17:14:27 GMT -5
Well, i have questioned people on other boards and all of a sudden it seems to be a big deal and becomes an argument. Without knowing everyone on this board and we can't read tone in messages, i just want to be clear. My thoughts are that the gifts (i would call them manifestations) are for today, i've experienced them. They are for they edifying of the body, ourselves and the church, (1Cor. 14:12,39) and also Paul tells us to covet earnestly the best gifts (1Cor. 12:31), why? so that God can be glorified and the body edified or built up. Of course they have been taken way out of control in some churches, especially on TV!!!
|
|
|
Post by fs on Feb 10, 2009 19:06:10 GMT -5
Good. Can you elaborate on your experience form your end. A valid and serious question. How can you be sure this is not your own mind working overtime if upi speak in tongues and is a true gift from god. I am just curious of the sensation and the feeling ypu get and am interested to hear from your side on this .
One thing I do not believe si what I heard among some Pentecostals that a person is not really saved unless he or she speaks in tongues.
Whether it is for yesterday or still for today could be debated I guess, yet what is the point.
I am curious to hear your experiences with this.
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 10, 2009 19:24:42 GMT -5
First off, i didn't say that i have ever spoken in tongues, but that i have experienced the manifestations of the Spirit and there are 9 of them recorded in scripture. I have seen/heard/spoken words of wisdom and knowledge spoken to individuals that were spot on and caused them to repent and trust Christ and also some to turn away from Christ.
I have heard messages given in tongues and then interpreted, not just some general message, and was fulfilled later.
I think the ones that say you have to speak in tongues to be saved are the "oneness pentecostals" and that is false.
I must say that i think there is a lot of false stuff out there, a lot of gibberish, but that doesn't mean there is not the real.
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Feb 15, 2009 6:14:01 GMT -5
Brethern,
The manifestations of the Holy Spirit that I have experienced are always to communicate truth to unbelievers, or to edify believers. As well in personal study. But the most powerful blessings have been in witnessing to others, the truths of the gospel plan for mankind. I agree with Steve on this point, that the Holy Spirit is ever ready to bless the witnessing Christian! Amen! May we all witness with even greater power, from hearts that are subdued and controled by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so that we will not be castaways when all is said and done.
Matthew
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 15, 2009 10:18:28 GMT -5
I doubted the spirit field experience until this happened to me. I have no doubt now that it is of God and wholly of God. Now I so not believe everyone must speak in tongues as proof of salvation. There are different gifts of the Holy Spirit and we all do not, I feel, get the same thing. Also I think anyone can go into a church and pretend to be speaking in tongues when they are not. In any case I have found the Pentecostal Movement to be much more edifying than the Methodist and Baptist denominations of my past. I am not saying these are wrong. To each his own. I am saying that to me, the praying in tongues has been a great gift and is from God.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Feb 15, 2009 10:26:16 GMT -5
I doubted the spirit field experience until this happened to me. I have no doubt now that it is of God and wholly of God. Now I so not believe everyone must speak in tongues as proof of salvation. There are different gifts of the Holy Spirit and we all do not, I feel, get the same thing. Also I think anyone can go into a church and pretend to be speaking in tongues when they are not. In any case I have found the Pentecostal Movement to be much more edifying than the Methodist and Baptist denominations of my past. I am not saying these are wrong. To each his own. I am saying that to me, the praying in tongues has been a great gift and is from God. It is those who have not experienced this Baptism that proclaims against it. Just like the sinner that comes against the preaching of repentance. It is because they have not experienced it. It sounds good to my ears that you have. It is real and not man made, nor of satan, although as you have said; many hypocrites are in the church pretending or have been tought to act out the gifts when in fact the Holy Ghost has not fallen on them . But I believe that is just an attempt by satan to cause many to resist the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by pete777 on Feb 15, 2009 19:40:52 GMT -5
Friends,
The Holy Spirit is the Person- Deity sent to rreplace Jesus Christ on earth, as Jesus is seated by the Father on His throne in the Most Holy place in heaven now. The Holy Spirit is doing just what the Bible says He would be doing. Convicting of sin, of righteousness and judgment to come. John 16:8.
There is a false tongues movement, there is no doubt about that! The gift of tongues is to communicate the gospel to those that do not understand it, or have not had a chance to hear it, period! The gift of tongues is not a SIGN of acceptance with God or approval. If I am in China and cannot speak mandarian, then the Holy Spirit will work a miracle. But if I am in America and there are is no need for the gift to communicate gospel truths, then the gift will not be given. Pentacostals and other churches are emotional, and exciting and lively, but are they Biblical? It may be fun to yell and shout, babble, and run around and jump over the pews, but does it lead to victory over sin in the flesh?
Are people exchanging one drug (nicotene) for another adrenaline? Both will lead to hell fire, unless the heart responds to the inworking of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is to convict us of sin and righteousness and judgment.
I have seen the AG churches talking in tongues and pacing up and down on stage, and the sermon to be so weak in Bible texts, but filled with loud emotional hooplah! Then the pastor gets done and goes out and smokes a cigarette, and eats some chocolate. This is satanic worship and is from the pit of HELL!
God is not in anyway whatsoever involved in that filth! He hates it with a passion! No cigarette smoking pastor is in anyway connected with the HOLY GOD of heaven! The gift of the Holy Spirit in witnessing is the ability to all the sudden remember Bible texts that were long forgotton or seldom used. To explain a passage of scripture with "pinpoint" accuracy and lead souls to the foot of the cross, and not the alter of excitement!
I love the sweet and soft and gentle influence the Holy Spirit gives when witnessing, and I always see powerful results when I allow the Spirit to have complete control.
May God bless us as we open our hearts to Him so He can work through us!
Matthew
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 16, 2009 20:34:01 GMT -5
pete777 said: I agree that there is definitely false tongues, but when you say that tongues is only to communicate the gospel, are you saying that Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Ephesians in Acts 19 were somehow communicating the gospel to someone who couldn't understand there original language? Who were they preaching to? Could you help me with your interpretation of those scriptures? thanks
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Feb 17, 2009 0:52:31 GMT -5
Many people when they are talking about tongues or gifts of the spirit or the holy ghost baptism, they do not resort to scripture. They resort rather to what other authors say, or make sense to them, they will agree with what the big names say, such things like; the Gifts of the Spirit were only for the early church. Where is that in the Bible?
Some get offended when they hear or see of Pentecostals shouting, speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor etc. Yes the charismatics have corrupted the church, but the Holy Ghost is still the same.
I feel sorry for you guys that are so quick to call something fake, especially when it lines up with Bible. I truly feel sorry for you that you will spend your whole life and probably never feel the real power of God.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Feb 17, 2009 7:47:48 GMT -5
Many people when they are talking about tongues or gifts of the spirit or the holy ghost baptism, they do not resort to scripture. They resort rather to what other authors say, or make sense to them, they will agree with what the big names say, such things like; the Gifts of the Spirit were only for the early church. Where is that in the Bible? Some get offended when they hear or see of Pentecostals shouting, speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor etc. Yes the charismatics have corrupted the church, but the Holy Ghost is still the same. I feel sorry for you guys that are so quick to call something fake, especially when it lines up with Bible. I truly feel sorry for you that you will spend your whole life and probably never feel the real power of God. AMEN, totally agree. As stated before. Many who oppose such gifts are those who have never experienced them. They do not understand them so they believe it is of the devil. But just like the sinner man, he has no understanding of spiritual things of God. So they too will oppose the Gospel of TRUTH. It takes God to reveal TRUTH to men. That is why I do not let it get to me too much when someones arrogance on the GIFTS are voiced. I am blessed to receive such gifts, and yes I do feel for those who do not because they do not understand. But I too once was a skeptic. I remember as a young boy and a young man making fun of those Pentecostals or holy rollers as I called them. I thought too they were full of the devil speaking in these crazy tongues. I felt this way when I thought I knew it all. But once I was humbled and came to God in a heart of openness unto HIS WORD did I become one of these tongue talkers so say. Only in humbleness can GOD REVEAL HIMSELF.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Feb 18, 2009 14:07:39 GMT -5
Amen!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 18, 2009 16:26:55 GMT -5
Scripturally you have no ground to claim you are baptized in the Holy Ghost if you do not speak in tongues.
Speaking in tongues was the initial evidence of people being baptized in the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:1-6).
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 18, 2009 17:24:04 GMT -5
Which foreign languages do you guys speak?
We could use some Spanish, Vietnamese and Laotian speaking evangelists to help out in our neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Feb 19, 2009 14:48:50 GMT -5
Scripturally you have no ground to claim you are baptized in the Holy Ghost if you do not speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues was the initial evidence of people being baptized in the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:1-6). Do all speak in tounges?
|
|
|
Post by burningnow on Feb 19, 2009 15:21:23 GMT -5
Isn't tongues just gibberish? Can you actually understand what you're saying? I sure as hell can't understand a single person when they're speaking in tongues. It would be nice if the Holy Ghost would just force a more recognizable language rather than just wiggling your tongue around and making UFO noices.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 21, 2009 16:41:26 GMT -5
Here are some thoughts for those of you who deny tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost.
Cop out number 1: Tongues was only so we could go and preach in other languages to people who do not speak our language.
Answer: That is definitely not the only Biblical purpose of speaking in tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:2-He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not UNTO MEN BUT UNTO GOD FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM: Howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries.
If a person speaking in tongues is not speaking unto men but unto God because no man can understand him then how can the only purpose of speaking in tongues be to preach to others in another language?
Cop out number 2: The proof of being baptized in the Holy Ghost is that you live a holy life.
Oh really? Did Jesus live a holy life before He was baptized in the Holy Ghost?
Matthew 3:16-17-And Jesus when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water and lo the heavens were opened unto Him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Him and lo voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son in WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED".
Jesus was baptized in the Holy Ghost after He pleased the Father. Is it possible for Jesus to please the Father without living a holy life?
Did Jesus live in sin before He was baptized in the Holy Ghost?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 22, 2009 22:09:18 GMT -5
Speaking in other languages or "tongues" has always been understood as intelligible speech up until the last hundred years or so. When Agnes Ozman claimed the gift of tongues she was said to speak several Chinese dialects, not unintelligible gibberish. The entire purpose of that first Pentecostal group was to gain the ability to speak other languages in order to do mission work in other cultures. They validated this gift by identifying the languages being spoken as intelligible languages.
The gift of speaking in various languages was a reversal the judgment at the tower of Babel, not a new form of babbling.
Jesus never spoke in "tongues" to our knowledge. What was He baptized with?
The initial gift of "tongues" was the gift of intelligible languages. Strange that no-one ever claims this gift of tongues, it is always a mysterious unintelligible language they seem to have. Nowhere is there any evidence of early Christians speaking in unintelligible languages. Speaking in languages that no-one else could understand (like Chinese) was warned against.
Someone who was given the gift of speaking a strange Persian dialect didn't need to speak that dialect to people who could not understand it. But he could certainly pray in that language as God is not subject to our limited understanding of various dialects and speeches.
I fully believe that God can grant us the gift of understanding and speaking foreign languages. I also fully believe that people have been indwelled by the Spirit for the past 1900 + years. We have no record of any Early Church Father claiming that any person (including the Apostles and those at Pentecost) ever possessed a gift of speaking unintelligible languages.
Unfortunately, what most folks consider to be the gift of "tongues" is nothing more than a self-imposed Babel. If you truly posses a prayer language, it is to be exercised in private. If you have the gift of speaking Spanish, Mandarin Chinese or German, only do so in the presence of someone who can understand what you are saying. If you speak a non-language under the premise of a special anointing, you are deceived. There is evidence of this sort of babble in many religions (Hindu for example), just not in Christianity (outside of various gnostic groups).
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 23, 2009 17:09:48 GMT -5
Joe,
You failed to address this. This contradicts what you wrote above.
1 Corinthians 14:2-He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not UNTO MEN BUT UNTO GOD FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM: Howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries.
If a person speaking in tongues is not speaking unto men but unto God because no man can understand him then how can the only purpose of speaking in tongues be to preach to others in another language?
We have no record Jesus ever spoke in tongues but He claimed we would (Mark 16:15-20).
You claimed above this is for a prayer language to be used in private. This is what we are addressing here. A prayer language.
Who were the Gentiles in Acts 10 preaching to?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 23, 2009 20:57:14 GMT -5
Micah,
I don't have any trouble with a prayer language exercised in private. But that is not the initial sign of being baptized by the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts 2; it was the gift of speaking and understanding intelligible languages other than the languages they had learned naturally. Like I said, it was Babel in reverse.
I interpret 1 Cor 14 in light of Acts 2, not the other way around. Best I can tell, it is referring to speaking in languages that cannot be interpreted by anyone present, and should be spoken in private.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 23, 2009 22:26:10 GMT -5
If we are going to look at the examples seen in the book of Acts and say "the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues" then we have to conclude that the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in another earthly tongue, because that is what happened on the Day of Pentecost.
But since not everyone speaks in another earthly tongue when they are full of the Holy Spirit, we must conclude that it does not always happen the same way, it doesn't always occur as it did in the examples of the book of Acts. That is what God did for them. That is not what God does for everyone.
It says that some were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to preach the word boldly. That is what God did for them. That has also been my experience.
Not everyone will have the same experience. Not everyone will prophecy. Not everyone will speak in tongues. Not everyone will preach boldly.
The experience is not the same for everyone:
Sometimes men speak another earthly language when they are baptized in the Holy Spirit: Act 2:4
Sometimes men speak the Word of God boldly when they are filled with the Holy Spirit: Acts 4:31
Sometimes men prophesied when they are baptized in the Holy Spirit: Acts 19:6
Sometimes men are filled by the laying on of hands: Acts 8:17, 19:6
Sometimes men are filled during prayer: Acts 4:31
Sometimes men are filled during preaching: Acts 10:44, 11:15
Sometimes, at least once, a man was filled in the womb: Luke 1:15, 41
Sometimes men are filled at salvation: Acts 10:43-44
Sometimes men are filled after salvation: Acts 8:14-15, 19:2
Sometimes men are filled before salvation: Luke 1:15, 41
There is not set pattern or standard.
The important question is not "when were you filled" or "how where you filled" or "what did you do immediately after you were filled", but the important question is "are you filled with the Holy Spirit?".
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 25, 2009 17:23:33 GMT -5
Joe,
In Acts 2 they were not going around preaching. Peter got up and preached and that was recorded. It is very clear from the text that what the disciples from the Upper Room experience were doing was much different from what Peter was doing.
Peter preached a sermon. If what you are saying is true then why did people think they were drunken?
Yes, so if you are talking about a prayer language then quit saying that tongues are just for preaching to people. By admitting someone can have a private prayer language of tongues you are admitting they are not just for preaching.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1-Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...
Men and angels. Some tongues are languages of men and some are angels.
Paul speaks of "diversities of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Diversities means different types of tongues. Paul also speaks of diversities of gifts, operations and administrations.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 25, 2009 17:43:03 GMT -5
Jesse,
I do not buy for one minute that the men in Acts 2:4 were only speaking in earthly languages. Why would they be accused of being drunk then?
They were not preaching sermons either. Peter did the preaching. The text is clear on this.
What they were doing was glorifying or praising God in other languages. I have heard countless experiences of people who were talking what some on this board would call "gibberish" and someone in the service who understood other languages would claim they were speaking a dialect perfectly and sometimes giving a message directly to that person. This was done under the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God as the Spirit of God wills and not man (Hebrews 2:4, 1 Corinthians 12:11).
I can preach anytime I will because I will it but I cannot manufacture the Gifts of the Holy Ghost whenever I will it.
This is much different than what you guys are saying tongues is for. To go to a foreign country and preach all the time in languages you never learned.
The reason why for centuries people understood it that way was because tongues was not restored to the church at large until around 1900.
The people who were filled in Acts 4 after praying and spoke boldly were the same people who were already filled initially in Acts 2:4 with the evidence of tongues.
The people who prophesied in Acts 19 also spoke in tongues. Now if speaking in tongues is just to preach in another language why would they also need to prophesy? God made a distinction between speaking in tongues and prophesying (see also 1 Corinthians 12).
In Acts 2:4 they were filled initially and spoke in tongues.
In Acts 10 they were filled initially and spoke in tongues.
In Acts 19 they were filled initially and spoke in tongues.
How did they determine people were filled in Acts 8? They laid hands on them and then what?
5 days later when they went to the prayer meeting they prayed more bold than before?
2 days later they went and preached.
They could tell they were filled initially the same way they could tell people were initially filled every other time.
I agree with you though that sometimes people are filled at salvation and other times after salvation (Acts 8). I also agree that sometimes people are filled by laying on of hands.
To my knowledge those are not the issues here. The issue here is whether or not tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost.
I stick by my original post that anyone who does not speak in tongues has no scriptural grounds for claiming the Baptism in the Holy Ghost.
|
|