If I've been babtized by the Holy Spirit, why cant I speak in tongues?

[Revmitchell]

Sooooo, you're basically saying that Peter was an unbeliever until the household of Cornelius spoke in tongues?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Scripture does not tie tongues into salvation.

[Colight]

uh, no.....If someone is empowered to speak a known language they had not previously learned in order to be able to preach the gospel to the lost then we have a biblcial use of tongues. If someone is looking for a repeat of Pentecost minus the sound of a rushing wind and tongues of fire within the church walls then we have an abomination to God.

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

Agreed..

Going to expand on your position to the signs and wonders types.

Tongues was a sign to a particular number of Unbelievers..
That being those jews alive between Pentecost and 70 ad..of the impending judgement that was about to fall upon them.

Our focus is to be on faith..
Faith needs no signs.
Tongues is defined as a sign therefore not of faith.
Christ called those who need signs. as wicked and adulterous...

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:

Any thing today that is of a sign, is not part of our faithful walk with Christ.
I would rather be known to Christ as faithful rather than adulterous.

2 Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight: )

Therefore any attempt to give heed to signs or wonders is a distraction from the command to live by faith.
For me I avoid it, like one who try trying to avoid carnality will avoid a strip club.
And will lead to nothing but confusion and a distracts from the focus we are to have upon Christ.

[Watchman]

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Scripture does not tie tongues into salvation.

Holy Guacamole, man! Peter did not report that the Lord had given him a vision to confirm the grafting in of the Gentiles...he reported tongues "just as we received."!!!!

[Revmitchell]

Holy Guacamole, man! Peter did not report that the Lord had given him a vision to confirm the grafting in of the Gentiles...he reported tongues "just as we received."!!!!

OK?........................

[Watchman]

OK?........................

Ok what? Can you not see the connection?

[Revmitchell]

Ok what? Can you not see the connection?

You seem to hold to some doctrine that you have, as of yet been unwilling to discuss, that I either do not hold to or am not aware of. You are making a connection that may be obvious in heretical charismatic circles but not in conservative circles.

[Watchman]

You seem to hold to some doctrine that you have, as of yet been unwilling to discuss, that I either do not hold to or am not aware of. You are making a connection that may be obvious in heretical charismatic circles but not in conservative circles.

Back off, Jack. You are making assumptions. Assumptions are known to make asses of folks. Your word choice leads me to believe that you are a divisive person, rather than a follower of Christ.

W

[Revmitchell]

Back off, Jack. You are making assumptions. Assumptions are known to make asses of folks. Your word choice leads me to believe that you are a divisive person, rather than a follower of Christ.

W

Well let's take a look at that:

Joh 8:41 You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God."
Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Reading this can we question whether or not Jesus was ever divisive? Of course no one would dare question the attack on people who are not charismatics in the ungodly thread tying a refusal to accept heretical charismatic doctrines to fear of Jesus.

[Watchman]

Reading this can we question whether or not Jesus was ever divisive? Of course no one would dare question the attack on people who are not charismatics in the ungodly thread tying a refusal to accept heretical charismatic doctrines to fear of Jesus.

Nice dodge, sir. You are comparing yourself to Jesus' divisiveness re: who came of God's accord. That is not relevant to our present discussion. Your words seem, to me, to be divisive in that all who believe in the charismata today are heretics, and that all who agree with you are not. If I am wrong, then please advise me of such. Yes, Jesus divided between the religious establishment and true believers...but that giveth not license to divide folks based upon scriptural interpretation. Scriptural interpretation belongs to God, not to the world of academia.

W

[Watchman]

You seem to hold to some doctrine that you have, as of yet been unwilling to discuss, that I either do not hold to or am not aware of. You are making a connection that may be obvious in heretical charismatic circles but not in conservative circles.

As for your assumption that I'm not willing to discuss...get a grip. Why on earth would I be on a discussion board were I unwilling to discuss? I am accustomed to discussion, to disagreement, and to recognizing disagreement (re: doctrine) as one of the burdens we are to bear if we, indeed, fulfill the law of Christ.

W

[Watchman]

One final statement that stands alone: Jesus NEVER divided the body of Christ.

[Slug1]

Nice dodge, sir. You are comparing yourself to Jesus' divisiveness re: who came of God's accord. That is not relevant to our present discussion. Your words seem, to me, to be divisive in that all who believe in the charismata today are heretics, and that all who agree with you are not. If I am wrong, then please advise me of such. Yes, Jesus divided between the religious establishment and true believers...but that giveth not license to divide folks based upon scriptural interpretation. Scriptural interpretation belongs to God, not to the world of academia.

W

Some people today in the Body of Christ would rather refuse to be used supernaturally by God (say NO to Him), than be labeled "charismatic" if they WERE to be obedient to God and He use them supernaturally.

[Slug1]

but not in conservative circles.

I'm as conservative as they come and being obedient to God is all about choice.

When "HE" wants to do something supernatural... then why do you think those who are obedient to God's will as He does empower them to due the supernatural for HIS glory... you label them "charismatic" as if that's a BAD thing to be? Then for a conservative to always say NO to God when He wants to use them supernaturally... is a good thing?

[Watchman]

Labels are sooooo limiting!

[zone]

I was a cessationist, I believed all the false doctrine of cassationism that the gifts of the Holy Spirit has ended under the false pretense that the "perfect" is the coming of the Bible.

So my unbelief was all about not believing the truth of the Word of God that Jesus is the "perfect". I didn't believe in the power of God to be manifested supernaturally through the Body of Christ FOR His glory as He moves in power and the Holy Spirit provides that empowerment to the Body of Christ.

I also was prophesied over that night I went from UNbeliever to believer... God had to do this so that WHEN the Holy Spirit empowered a prophet to speak prophecy over me, I'd RECEIVE the message of a secret of my heart and then I'd be ABLE to worship God (glory given unto God) and believe that HE IS among those who He was using supernaturally.

A year prior, I'd of run out of there thinking they were nuts once the Holy Spirit empowered them and moved some to speak in tongues... or worse, STATE that what happened was of the devil and NOT God. If I had done that... I'd of committed blasphemy and NEVER be forgiven.

That is the damnable purpose of the cassationist doctrine... to get people so bound in the false truth that God don't manifest supernaturally anymore that WHEN He does manifest supernaturally, people under the bondage to that false doctrine "MAY" be so hardened of heart, that if they were to witness or experience a supernatural miracle/sign/wonder today... they "MAY" say the source of the power was from satan. If they "WERE" to do that... they committed blasphemy and they will NEVER be forgiven of that sin.

i see.
the unpardonable sin terror tactic, huh?


k.