PDA

View Full Version : Tongues/Filled with the Holy Spirit



Open
Nov 4th 2007, 08:15 PM
Hi.

I would like to bring up the rather controversial topics of ‘speaking in tongues’ and being ‘filled with the spirit’.

I have an open mind on both matters.

Some say tongues were a gift only for the early church. Can someone explain why this is believed to be correct? (Scriptural references would be helpful). I cannot see anywhere where such a limit would be placed on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but would welcome input from all sides on this one. I understand that many feel pressure to ‘speak in tongues’ and may therefore speak whatever comes in to their heads, and relevant arguments regarding hypnosis, but I am interested in the scriptural basis for talking in tongues for the present day and not other side issues.

In relation to being filled with the spirit, I would like to ask if there are any who believe that this ‘filling’ is spiritual, psychological, hypnosis or something truly from God.
There is a lot of grey area here. Feelings of euphoria of this nature can apparently be replicated in ‘the lab’, unconnected with religious experience.
My question here is twofold. Firstly, the scriptural basis for ongoing filling of this nature and secondly, is this hypnotherapy or God.

I have chosen the bible chat area of the forum, as I would like to base replies in scripture, but would welcome information on independent studies of such matters.

Can whoever replies try to check their own prejudices regarding such matters and deal in facts and scripture only.
I want to avoid a heated argument or any disrespect for opposing views. Ie discuss the topic showing respect to all views in this matter.

Ulp!!!

cross crusader
Nov 4th 2007, 08:35 PM
Hi.

I would like to bring up the rather controversial topics of ‘speaking in tongues’ and being ‘filled with the spirit’.

I have an open mind on both matters.

Some say tongues were a gift only for the early church. Can someone explain why this is believed to be correct? (Scriptural references would be helpful). I cannot see anywhere where such a limit would be placed on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but would welcome input from all sides on this one. I understand that many feel pressure to ‘speak in tongues’ and may therefore speak whatever comes in to their heads, and relevant arguments regarding hypnosis, but I am interested in the scriptural basis for talking in tongues for the present day and not other side issues.

In relation to being filled with the spirit, I would like to ask if there are any who believe that this ‘filling’ is spiritual, psychological, hypnosis or something truly from God.
There is a lot of grey area here. Feelings of euphoria of this nature can apparently be replicated in ‘the lab’, unconnected with religious experience.
My question here is twofold. Firstly, the scriptural basis for ongoing filling of this nature and secondly, is this hypnotherapy or God.

I have chosen the bible chat area of the forum, as I would like to base replies in scripture, but would welcome information on independent studies of such matters.

Can whoever replies try to check their own prejudices regarding such matters and deal in facts and scripture only.
I want to avoid a heated argument or any disrespect for opposing views. Ie discuss the topic showing respect to all views in this matter.

Ulp!!!

Mark 16:17, And thses signs WILL follow those who believe:In my name they WILL cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues.
Joel 2:28-29, 1 Cor 12.
Here is what i believe based on scripture, unless God specifically says that it will or has ceased in the Bible, it still is available.
As far as the baptism of the Holy Spirit it still happens and the power that comes along with it cannot be imitated in a lab. You are filled for a purpose, it is not a feeling, that is our emotions, now i am not denying that emotions sometimes cannot be involved when it happens, but it is a noticeable and visible and a verifiable change in a person nature and demeanor. But with this topic there are gonna a hundred post debating the original greek and hebrew language.
Matthew 7:7-8, Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

godsgirl
Nov 4th 2007, 08:38 PM
Speaking in tongues is the evidence the Bible uses for one being filled with (baptised in) the Holy Spirit
Acts 2:4
Acts 10:46
Acts 19:6
Jesus is the One who baptises believers in the Holy Spirit
John 1:33
He called this baptism "the promise of the Father"
Acts 1:5
Peter said that this promise was for all of us...
Acts 2:39
When we are given details of someones baptism in the Spirit in the Bible-tongues are always there.
Acts 2:4
Acts 10:46
Acts 19:6
Jesus is the same forever
Hebrews 13:8
this is NOT the gift of tongues-the gifts are for the church gathered
1 Corinthians 14:4
Most tongues are for speaking to God-not man.
1 Corinthians 14:2
They are for the building up of our faith.
1 Corinthians 14:4
when they are spoken forth as a Spiritual gift-they are accompained by the gift of interpretation so that the church can be edified-built up.
1 Corinthians 14:4
Not all are used in the Spiritual gift of tongues (for public use)
1 Corithians 12:30
Tongues will cease when Jesus returns and we know as we are known
1 Corinthians 13:8

Brother Mark
Nov 4th 2007, 08:44 PM
Call me one who believes that speaking in tongues is still around. However, I also do not believe it is a gift given to everyone.

Personally, I hold to the verse in acts that says when the holy spirit has come upon you, you will have power to be my witnesses. Power is the sign of filling of the Holy Spirit and that is sometimes accompanied with speaking in tongues.

cross crusader
Nov 4th 2007, 08:51 PM
Call me one who believes that speaking in tongues is still around. However, I also do not believe it is a gift given to everyone.

Personally, I hold to the verse in acts that says when the holy spirit has come upon you, you will have power to be my witnesses. Power is the sign of filling of the Holy Spirit and that is sometimes accompanied with speaking in tongues.

Acts 1:8 great verse. Would you agree that the gift of tongues is available to everyone who seeks it though? In my own experience i had received the baptism before without speaking in tongues. But about a year later i started speaking in tongues after i had prayed for it. I was one of those ones where God had to literally hand deliver the gift to me you know what i mean, big flashing neon signs and such.:lol: And since in prayer life i have noticed a monumental change.

Brother Mark
Nov 4th 2007, 08:54 PM
Acts 1:8 great verse. Would you agree that the gift of tongues is available to everyone who seeks it though? In my own experience i had received the baptism before without speaking in tongues. But about a year later i started speaking in tongues after i had prayed for it. I was one of those ones where God had to literally hand deliver the gift to me you know what i mean, big flashing neon signs and such.:lol:

I hear you! I think all can be filled/baptized with the holy Spirit. But I can't get by Acts 1 that tells us exactly what the sign of being baptized is and I can't get the verse in Corinthians that says "not all speak with tongues" when referring to gifts.

Having said that, I will not be one to break fellowship over such a doctrine either.

And yes, I know what you mean about the neon sign thing. God can shout if he has to. :D

CrunchyChristian
Nov 4th 2007, 08:57 PM
I believe in speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit. I think that godsgirl pretty much covered any of the verses I would've posted.

1Cor 13:9-10

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

Some people believe that the above verse is an indication that the "which is perfect has come" is refering to the bible. I believe that it is actually talking about Jesus. When Jesus comes again, there will be no need for the gifts. When He left, He sent us the Holy Spirit (along with the gifts of the Spirit.) When He returns, those gifts will then cease.

The only other verse I'd like to add is 1Cor14:39 (added emphasis mine.)

39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

As for being filled with the Holy Spirit, I agree with cross crusader. It can be emotional, but it was a spiritual life changing event for me. My walk with Christ before I was filled with the Holy Spirit doesn't even hold a candle to what it is now.

May He guide you in your journey to the Truth.

Blessings,

RogerW
Nov 4th 2007, 09:01 PM
Hi.

I would like to bring up the rather controversial topics of ‘speaking in tongues’ and being ‘filled with the spirit’.

I have an open mind on both matters.

Some say tongues were a gift only for the early church. Can someone explain why this is believed to be correct? (Scriptural references would be helpful). I cannot see anywhere where such a limit would be placed on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but would welcome input from all sides on this one. I understand that many feel pressure to ‘speak in tongues’ and may therefore speak whatever comes in to their heads, and relevant arguments regarding hypnosis, but I am interested in the scriptural basis for talking in tongues for the present day and not other side issues.

In relation to being filled with the spirit, I would like to ask if there are any who believe that this ‘filling’ is spiritual, psychological, hypnosis or something truly from God.
There is a lot of grey area here. Feelings of euphoria of this nature can apparently be replicated in ‘the lab’, unconnected with religious experience.
My question here is twofold. Firstly, the scriptural basis for ongoing filling of this nature and secondly, is this hypnotherapy or God.

I have chosen the bible chat area of the forum, as I would like to base replies in scripture, but would welcome information on independent studies of such matters.

Can whoever replies try to check their own prejudices regarding such matters and deal in facts and scripture only.
I want to avoid a heated argument or any disrespect for opposing views. Ie discuss the topic showing respect to all views in this matter.

Ulp!!!

Greetings,

The following link is to an excellent article by James Frye. I hope it will be beneficial for you. Blessings, RW

http://www.mydoctrine.com/Tongues.HTM

VerticalReality
Nov 4th 2007, 09:11 PM
Just to make this thread interesting and post something that's going to be used eventually anyway . . .



1 Corinthians 13:8
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.



:lol:

Take that you bunch of charismatics!!!

Brother Mark
Nov 4th 2007, 09:14 PM
Just make this thread interesting and post something that's going to be used eventually anyway . . .




:lol:

Take that you bunch of charismatics!!!

LOL! It's already been used in the article posted above. But I am still waiting for that which is perfect to come before that prophesy is fulfilled. :D

poorinspirit
Nov 4th 2007, 09:44 PM
Hi Open,

May I ask questions? I believe in the speaking of tongues, but taking a step back and overlooking its use today has raised alot of questions.

Isn't it true that when they spoke in tongues the first time, they were declaring the wonderful works of God in foreign languages?

Isn't it also true that speaking in tongues was a sign for the unbelievers, not for believers?

Isn't it true that when one speaks in tongues, there are to be two or three and an interpreter while others judge what was given?

Isn't it true that when speaking in tongues with an interpretor is done properly, it is so that the whole body may profit withal from the knowledge of Jesus shared so that our love may abound yet more and more?

Isn't it also true that in present day use of speaking in tongues, nothing has been shared to edify the body of believers in the knowledge of Jesus? I have not heard nor seen any collections of reports of tongues with an interpretor done properly being handed out to all the churches.

Isn't it also true that if finally some church steps up to the plate to published the continuance of the New Testament, would what be shared not be found already in the New Testament?

Is it also true that prophesying was to be sought more than speaking in tongues? Why are believers seeking speaking in tongues more than anything else?

I find it so odd that for all those churches that claim to have speaking in tongues, none were alerted to the apostasy of the Promise Keepers' movement nor the "holy laughter" movement that swept the nation in 1994, and yet I had to find discernment in the scriptures to expose them as such.

Anyway, my voiced skepticism on the use of speaking in tongues today.

As far as the filling of the Spirit, I believe it is a one time event as promised for all those that come to Jesus and not continual. People that do this type of seeking are changing the way they worship after a rudiment of the world in how the world seek to receive another spirit by seeing it.

What do the scriptures say?

John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And yet when people seek after the Holy Spirit, I have heard that they have a hunger for more of God.. for more of that experience, and yet that goes against the promise for all those that come to Jesus.

Are we not a new creature in Christ?

2 Corinthians 5: 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Would that not give meaning to the verse below?

Matthew 9: 17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Thus we are sealed as His thus saved.

How is one born of the Spirit? Does it have to be with the way it was in the book of Acts when it served to bear witness of new believers after hearing the Gospel thus unbelievers would consider or marvel? What did Jesus say?

John 3: 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Galatians 3: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Hebrews 11: 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We receive the Spirit by obeying the commandment which are Jesus' invitations to Himself. Do note verse 17 in how the world receive other spirits.

John 14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me....16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I honestly don't know how anyone cannot see this continual filling as preaching another spirit other than the one we had already received.

2 Corinthians 11: 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I believe in the one time filling of the Holy Spirit which is the promise for all those that come to Jesus.

Ephesians 1: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Anyway, I find the use of speaking in tongues as wanting as it never seems to muster the way it was being used in the early churches.

And the filling? One time event or else how can anyone say they are resting in Jesus or not hungering anymore for coming to Him?

godsgirl
Nov 4th 2007, 11:10 PM
I'll answer your first few questions now, maybe the others later poor.

May I ask questions? I believe in the speaking of tongues, but taking a step back and overlooking its use today has raised alot of questions.

Isn't it true that when they spoke in tongues the first time, they were declaring the wonderful works of God in foreign languages?

Tis is true, BUT it doesn't say that they were speaking in the languages of the people in the street-it DOES say, that they all spoke at once-and that those around them HEARD them each in their own language.

Isn't it also true that speaking in tongues was a sign for the unbelievers, not for believers?

That's one purpose of tongues, but according to scripture it isn't the ONLY purpose. They are also used as prayer in the spirit-and as a message from God to the church.

Isn't it true that when one speaks in tongues, there are to be two or three and an interpreter while others judge what was given?

When one speaks out in a tongue (the gift of tongues) yes, there is to be the gift of interpretation-this though, is also a supernatural gift-it isn't merely understanding in the natural what it said.

godsgirl
Nov 4th 2007, 11:15 PM
I hear you! I think all can be filled/baptized with the holy Spirit. But I can't get by Acts 1 that tells us exactly what the sign of being baptized is and I can't get the verse in Corinthians that says "not all speak with tongues" when referring to gifts.

Having said that, I will not be one to break fellowship over such a doctrine either.

And yes, I know what you mean about the neon sign thing. God can shout if he has to. :D


The baptism in the Spirit is for power-but the Bible still shows that the way we know we've received is the ability to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enables us to speak.

How did the Jewish believers know that the gentiles had received-it wasn't because they began have power (and how would you know that anyway)-it was "for we heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God" Acts 10:46

Brother Mark
Nov 4th 2007, 11:21 PM
The baptism in the Spirit is for power-but the Bible still shows that the way we know we've received is the ability to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enables us to speak.

How did the Jewish believers know that the gentiles had received-it wasn't because they began have power (and how would you know that anyway)-it was "for we heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God" Acts 10:46

Right. But tongues can be a sign of power. However, every time Peter was filled, he did not speak in tongues. But every time he was filled, he did have power.

poorinspirit
Nov 4th 2007, 11:26 PM
Thanks RogerW for providing the link on an article by James Frye. It pretty much confirmed my suspicions on the use of tongues today.

jeffreys
Nov 4th 2007, 11:47 PM
For the sake of being the voice of dissent, I'm going to throw out the contrary view.

*Is it possible that the entire speaking in tongues phenomenon is purely psychological in nature?


*Is it possible that these "healing ministries" are actually fraudulent, and do far more damage than good (I'm thinking dinks like Benny Hinn here)?

*Is it possible - based on the fact that charismatics have the highest divorce rates among Christians - that many people in those churches are completely focused on the completely wrong things?


I'll step back and try to avoid the arrows for a moment or two... ;)

godsgirl
Nov 5th 2007, 12:13 AM
Right. But tongues can be a sign of power. However, every time Peter was filled, he did not speak in tongues. But every time he was filled, he did have power.


Actually, I believe that scripture teaches tongues are the "initial physical evidence" of the baptism in the Spirit-they aren't the ONLY evidence-just the first one and yes, when Peter was baptised in the Spirit he DID speak in tongues-"Acts 2:4".

And all Pentecostal believers are not Charismatic.-they aren't the same thing, for example most Charismatics are WOF-Pentecostals are not.

VerticalReality
Nov 5th 2007, 01:05 AM
For the sake of being the voice of dissent, I'm going to throw out the contrary view.

You rebel you!


*Is it possible that the entire speaking in tongues phenomenon is purely psychological in nature?

Entire? Nah. Some? Sure.


*Is it possible that these "healing ministries" are actually fraudulent, and do far more damage than good (I'm thinking dinks like Benny Hinn here)?

I really couldn't speak accurately here as I have never been to a Benny Hinn service, nor have I ever heard any personal testimonies from folks who have. However, I have heard some of his teachings on some things and I thought they were okay. I couldn't vouche for everything he teaches, but I have heard some things from him that were good. I just don't watch much from the televangelists. I saw some teachings of his on DVD that were okay. I wouldn't say I agreed with all of it, but it wasn't bad.


*Is it possible - based on the fact that charismatics have the highest divorce rates among Christians - that many people in those churches are completely focused on the completely wrong things?

I have a hard time believing that their divorce is significantly higher than any other church. However, I would say that any church, regardless of denominational affiliation, who has a high divorce rate needs to re-examine themselves according to the Word. Divorce is rampant in the entire church . . . not just the charismatics, which shows me that the church is not being led by the Spirit of God.

Debra R
Nov 5th 2007, 01:40 AM
LOL! It's already been used in the article posted above. But I am still waiting for that which is perfect to come before that prophesy is fulfilled. :D

:D I'm waiting too. :) Come quickly Lord Jesus! :pp

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 01:30 PM
I have a hard time believing that their divorce is significantly higher than any other church. However, I would say that any church, regardless of denominational affiliation, who has a high divorce rate needs to re-examine themselves according to the Word. Divorce is rampant in the entire church . . . not just the charismatics, which shows me that the church is not being led by the Spirit of God.

I must apologize. I didn't get my information correct.

Pentecostals/charismatics have a higher divorce rate than some, but not all denominations. MY APOLOGIES.

What was most surprising to me, about this study, is that it is Catholics & Lutherans who have the LOWEST divorce rates.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html


This issue of divorce among Christians just might be worthy of its own thread. :hmm:

Steven3
Nov 5th 2007, 01:53 PM
Links to two threads that have not long finished:
Are tongues still active today (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=101531)
History of tongues (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=102262)

Hi Godsgirl
Doing good? :)
Isn't it true that when they spoke in tongues the first time, they were declaring the wonderful works of God in foreign languages?

Tis is true, BUT it doesn't say that they were speaking in the languages of the people in the street-it DOES say, that they all spoke at once-and that those around them HEARD them each in their own language.We've been here before ;) but that isn't the way one would naturally read Acts 2:6 & 11. If I hear you speak in English, the English is you speaking in English, not me hearing in English.


because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God

This is why it is called the "gift of tongues" not the "gift of ears". :rolleyes: And why the tongues of flame settled on the speakers not the hearers. Peter references this "as on us at the beginning" after the Cornelius case.

It's difficult to equate these 14 regions with specific languages but what we have here is 12 apostles speaking 12-14 distinct mediterranean languages. 1. Parthian 2. Persian ("Medes") 3. Elamite 4. Chaldee (Mesopotamia) 5. Cappadocian, 6. Greek (Pontus and Asia Minor), 7. Phrygian 8. Pamphylian, 9. Egyptian 10. Cyrenean, 11. Latin, 12. Cretan and 13. Arabian. ....But generally we get the idea - this was a limited number of men (says Peter, "men" = males) speaking coherent intelligible languages that any hearer could understand. If you taped these tongues they'd be real languages. What happened at Pentecost is just normal tongues, Luke uses the word tongues "glossai", but also dialects "dialektoi".

What was happening at Corinth bears more resemblance to the "angelic tongues" spoken by in the Therapeutae synagogues, or maybe to Pythonic or Delphic worship. If you taped those tongues it would be jumbled up phonemes of the speakers mother tongue - as per Savarin's research in the 1970s.

God bless
Steven

faithfulfriend
Nov 5th 2007, 08:48 PM
I have a few questions if that's alright:

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:22, but they did not speak in tongues when this happened. Why not?

The filling of the Spirit in Acts 4:31 and Eph. 5:18-20 does not include speaking in tongues. Why not?

Those who did speak in tongues (foreign languages) had power over their own spirit (1 Cor. 14:32). 1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.


Also, why didn't Christ himself ever speak in tongues?

Open
Nov 5th 2007, 09:26 PM
Wow! I leave a post for 24 hours and it takes a life of its own!!!!

Many thanks for all the replies.

Can the dissenters advise what they think the current day 'filling of the Spirit' is and why?

poorinspirit
Nov 5th 2007, 09:57 PM
Hi Open,

I shall repeat a part of the post I had on how the KJV views the filling of the Spirit just to get it going again on that topic.

As far as the filling of the Spirit, I believe it is a one time event as promised for all those that come to Jesus and not continual. People that do this type of seeking are changing the way they worship after a rudiment of the world in how the world seek to receive another spirit by seeing it.

What do the scriptures say?

John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And yet when people seek after the Holy Spirit, I have heard that they have a hunger for more of God.. for more of that experience, and yet that goes against the promise for all those that come to Jesus.

Are we not a new creature in Christ?

2 Corinthians 5: 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Would that not give meaning to the verse below?

Matthew 9: 17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Thus we are sealed as His thus saved.

How is one born of the Spirit? Does it have to be with the way it was in the book of Acts when it served to bear witness of new believers after hearing the Gospel thus unbelievers would consider or marvel? What did Jesus say?

John 3: 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Galatians 3: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Hebrews 11: 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We receive the Spirit by obeying the commandment which are Jesus' invitations to Himself. Do note verse 17 in how the world receive other spirits.

John 14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me....16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I honestly don't know how anyone cannot see this continual filling as preaching another spirit other than the one we had already received.

2 Corinthians 11: 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I believe in the one time filling of the Holy Spirit which is the promise for all those that come to Jesus.

Ephesians 1: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

So the filling? One time event or else how can anyone say they are resting in Jesus or not hungering anymore for coming to Him?

Soj
Nov 5th 2007, 10:06 PM
Can the dissenters advise what they think the current day 'filling of the Spirit' is and why?The Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is dwelling/living inside us, we should all know this:

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The "indwelling" of the Spirit and the "filling" of the Spirit are different things. When we willingly mortify the deeds of our flesh and walk in the Spirit we are filled and become "full" of the Holy Ghost, and when that happens we experience the power of God in our hearts and lives much more because we are allowing God's Spirit to rule us and guide us. On the other hand, when we choose to walk in the flesh and not the Spirit we are not filled with the Holy Ghost and we actually grieve the Spirit and quench Him from working in our hearts, hence why we can become miserable at times in our walk with God instead of joyful and at peace.

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1 Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.


All of that has nothing to do with the modern tongues movement.

poorinspirit
Nov 5th 2007, 11:03 PM
Hi Soj NZ,

Some key points to address from your statement.


On the other hand, when we choose to walk in the flesh and not the Spirit we are not filled with the Holy Ghost

I'm fairly sure you are referring to this verse below.

Ephesians 5: 18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

How come there is no mention of excess with the Spirit, but there is with wine? Is that intentional? What about this verse below?

John 3: 34For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

This is in reference to Jesus, but it is His Word and in regards to anyone Jesus send now, right?

Matthew 10: 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

My point is that if the Spirit is given without measure when He enables us to speak for Him, how can it be with measure in regards to anything else? I mean, if one is drunk with wine due to excess, the Holy Spirit is still there, but due to the excess of wine, the fruit of self control or temperance has been subdued temporarily by drunkenness. Once drunkenness has subsided, guess what? Temperance is still there. And so is the Holy Spirit in you also. It is by sowing to the flesh that in reaping drunkenness that throws everything off. I mean... no repentive drunk person is going to have God fill him with temperance so he may drive home all right so why would that be in regards to anything else?

This would lead to the verses you used, but this is in regards to fornication.

1 Corinthians 6: 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

So you are always filled with the Holy Spirit. The call to remain filled as in not sowing to the flesh is apparent, but there is not a call to get more of the Holy Spirit or seek a continual filling for you have been bought with a price and sealed with that Spirit of adoption and thus saved.

To look for an experience of filling of the Holy Spirit is after the rudiment of the world in how they look for another spirit for they receive as they see it. Do not mediums call up ghosts again and again? Did not the American Indians call for the Great Spirit? This is why no invitations has been given out to come to the Holy Spirit because there are other spirits in the world. How can this not be preaching another spirit other than what we have already received? How can anyone adhere to that discernment if believers say that there is a continual filling? How can believers know when those of the world come in and do their thing in calling forth other spirits as they call for the Holy Spirit or look to a continual filling?

I do not see how a continual filling can be seen as resting in Jesus nor as coming to Jesus in prayer in the worship place Whom the Holy Spirit is leading believers to do.... to testify and glorify Jesus Christ.

How can you be sure you are not glorifying something else in His name or preaching another spirit when you preach a continual filling? Maybe you don't do it as other extremes do, but the rudiment is there for many to be led to the extremes, and it is still not after Christ Jesus to rest in Him.

Just sharing my concern for you.

Whispering Grace
Nov 5th 2007, 11:16 PM
*Is it possible - based on the fact that charismatics have the highest divorce rates among Christians - that many people in those churches are completely focused on the completely wrong things?

I am Pentecostal, not charismatic. And I don't know a single person in my church who is divorced, save one whose husband walked out on her against her wishes.

And people in my church are focused on Jesus Christ and bringing Him glory. They are focused on God's Word and clinging to the fundamentals of Scripture. And they are focused on living lives of holiness and obedience to God.

So no, I don't see where your concern is warranted for my church or others within my denomination.

godsgirl
Nov 5th 2007, 11:57 PM
faithfulfriend; said, "I have a few questions if that's alright":

:D Of course it is!

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:22, but they did not speak in tongues when this happened. Why not?

They received the indwelling of the Spirit-Just like we all do when we are saved--there is to put it simply, more-and this couldn't happen until Jesus was glorified.....And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you AND will be in you.—John 14:16-17

The filling of the Spirit in Acts 4:31 and Eph. 5:18-20 does not include speaking in tongues. Why not?
Acts 4:31-these people were already filled with the Spirit back in Acts 2:4-so they already spoke in tongues. Same with the Ephesian believers-they were already baptised in the Spirit also-so they spoke in tongues then too-Acts 19:6



Those who did speak in tongues (foreign languages) had power over their own spirit (1 Cor. 14:32). 1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

God doesn't force us to do anything if thats what you mean. Sorry, I guess I'm just not getting your question here.


Also, why didn't Christ himself ever speak in tongues?

Jesus had a perfect relationship with His Father-He is ONE with Him-and when we are-we won't speak in tongues either-tongues will cease when that which is perfect is come-and we know as we are known-Jesus already did---but we see through a glass darkly...The most common use of tongues is talking to God--"He who speaks in a tongue, does NOT speak to man, but to God, indeed NO ONE understands, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries."

Brother Mark
Nov 6th 2007, 12:04 AM
Jesus had a perfect relationship with His Father-He is ONE with Him-and when we are-we won't speak in tongues either-for the most important use of tongues is talking to God--"He who speaks in a tongue, does NOT speak to man, but to God, indeed NO ONE understands, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries.

But Jesus was baptized in the Holy Spirit and did not speak in tongues. Yet, he did have power. This was what is spoken of in Acts 1:8 that will happen when the Holy Spirit fills a person.

Another verse "Not all speak with tongues" when concerning gifts.

1 Cor 12:27-31
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

And I show you a still more excellent way.
NASB


Each gift is given according to how God decides. All can have the Holy Spirit and be baptized into power. But not all will receive tongues at the empowering.

godsgirl
Nov 6th 2007, 12:44 AM
[quote=Brother Mark;1431885]But Jesus was baptized in the Holy Spirit and did not speak in tongues. Yet, he did have power. This was what is spoken of in Acts 1:8 that will happen when the Holy Spirit fills a person.

Jesus was One with the Holy Spirit-and the Father-yes, the Holy Spirit filling a person brings power-for witness, but the initial evidence of that is still speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. Acts 2:4

Jesus didn't need to be baptised in the Holy Spirit-He is the baptiser--"there is coming one who is mightier than I, whose shoes I am unworthy to unlatch--it is He who baptises with the Holy Spirit.

Another verse "Not all speak with tongues" when concerning gifts.

1 Cor 12:27-31
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

Speaking of the gifts of the Spirit here-one of them being tongues and interpretation-tongues as a gift are for the church gathered-this isn't the same as tongues for private use. So while all who are baptised in the Spirit can pray and praise in tongues-they are NOT all used in the gift of tongues.

And I show you a still more excellent way.
NASB


Each gift is given according to how God decides. All can have the Holy Spirit and be baptized into power. But not all will receive tongues at the empowering.

We can only go by the examples we have in scripture and when evidence of the baptism in the Spirit is given -tongues are there. So, yes, all who receive the baptism speak in tongues as the Spirit enables them.-this is the evidence we have in the Word-and that's all we can go by-not my experience or yours. All do have the Holy Spirit-all Christians anyway, but just like with the disciples-there is more.

Soj
Nov 6th 2007, 12:49 AM
Hi Soj NZ,

Some key points to address from your statement.

I'm fairly sure you are referring to this verse below.

Ephesians 5: 18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;You can be 100% sure I was referring to that verse because I quoted it in my post!

Paul is giving instructions to believers who had already been baptised into Christ and received the Holy Ghost, he tells them to "be filled with the Spirit", but if this filling is something that only happens once as you say then it seems Paul was telling them to be filled again, which is a contradiction.

The same principle applies in the following verse where the disciples in Acts 13, who had already received the Holy Ghost earlier in Acts, were filled with the Spirit again:

Acts 13:51 But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.


This would lead to the verses you used, but this is in regards to fornication.

1 Corinthians 6: 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.The context of the verses may be fornication but the point I was making is that God's Spirit indwells the believers body, that's all, or don't you agree on this point?


So you are always filled with the Holy Spirit.We are always indwelt by the Spirit, but I disagree that we are always filled with Him, they are two different operations.


To look for an experience of filling of the Holy Spirit is after the rudiment of the world in how they look for another spirit for they receive as they see it. Do not mediums call up ghosts again and again? Did not the American Indians call for the Great Spirit? This is why no invitations has been given out to come to the Holy Spirit because there are other spirits in the world. How can this not be preaching another spirit other than what we have already received? How can anyone adhere to that discernment if believers say that there is a continual filling? How can believers know when those of the world come in and do their thing in calling forth other spirits as they call for the Holy Spirit or look to a continual filling?I agree in part, we shouldn't be looking for an experience like some do, that is spiritual deception, but we should be seeking a closeness with God continually, walking in the Spirit and not the flesh and desiring that God's Spirit would fill every part of our being each day to accomplish this.


Just sharing my concern for you.I appreciate your concern, but I think we are closer in our belief system than you may give credit. I have the peace of God about my stand on this subject, bless you.

calirighty
Nov 6th 2007, 01:43 AM
I have to disagree with some of the statements I have read on here. I also must say that many people have the false impression that scriptures can be read individually and that they apply to all people for all time. This mistake can force the reader into believing something that the Bible does not teach. One such scripture is Acts 1:8 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

When you read that scripture (and any other scripture) you have to ask yourself some basic questions:
1. WHO said it?
2. WHAT did he/she say?
3. WHO did they say it to?
4. WHY did they say it?

Answers:
1. Jesus was the speaker.
2. He was telling the Apostles how the Church would begin.
3. He was speaking to the APOSTLES.
4. He was informing the Apostles on the next step of God's plan of salvation.

This idea that Jesus was to talking to "all people for all time" is unbiblical. He said no such thing. Jesus stated to the APOSTLES that they ( the Apostles) should go into wait for the gift the Father promised. You (the Apostles) will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. You (the Apostles) will be witnesses. Jesus was giving instructions to a specific group of people. He was NOT stating that all believers were going to be given this power. He was NOT stating that these powers were going to last forever. Yet, people day in and day out preach that ALL believers are to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and that simply is NOT what the Bible teaches.

Case in point:

Acts 2:7 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?

Who does the Bible say were speaking in tongues? Galileans.

Where were the Apostles from? Galilee.

Were ALL disciples from Galilee? Jesus preached in a lot of places so I find this very unlikely.

So who was speaking in tongues? The APOSTLES.

ACTS 2:11: Peter stood up with who? The APOSTLES.

ACTS 2:43: Who did many signs and Miracles? The Apostles. No mention of ANYONE other than the Apostles doing miracles.

I encourage all of you to read EVERYTHING that happened instead of plucking select scriptures and trying to make them fit a preconceived idea. This IS not what Jesus wanted. This is NOT what Jesus expected.

poorinspirit
Nov 6th 2007, 01:45 AM
Hi Soj NZ,

You did mentioned it! I totally missed it, because verse 19 and 20 was added to it! Hah! I was so used to seeing that verse 18 by itself! Sorry. Teach me for slacking in reading or recollecting!

I can hope that we are on the same page, but maybe we need to look at this a different way? Instead of filling of the Spirit, we walk in the Spirit?

Galatians 6: 6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

1 Peter 2: 11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Galatians 5: 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

It seems that as we are sowing to the Spirit and not to the flesh, since love opposes lust for love seeks not its own, but the good of the other, of which loving thy neighbor as thyself is the fulfillment of the Law... and Christ's commandment... we would be walking in the Spirit.

I would think that if I was to address the walk in the Spirit, I would point to the fruits as ones to practise as opposing the works of the flesh. This filling of the Spirit is the communication that sounds too much like the extremes are using... thus goes to show why I was concern for you. If you see how changing our words may yet better communicate the need to walk in the Spirit as opposing to sowing to the flesh, it would differentiate the use of the term filling of the Spirit to those that use it for the extreme... and thus not misleading any that set their eyes on Jesus to help them live as His to look to the Spirit for a filling. Indeed, it is walking in the Spirit with our eyes on Christ instead of looking to the Spirit for a filling that would differentiate us from those that have gone to the extreme, would it not?

godsgirl
Nov 6th 2007, 02:12 AM
Man has free will. If you don't want to be saved, God will let you go to hell. Likewise, is you don't want His grace (charisma) go ahead and live without it. God told us through Paul to keep on being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). He (Jesus) also told us to wait until we are endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49).
I will believe what the Bible says, not what I hear from my friends who heard that somebody one time went somewhere and this is what they heard.
Now listen carefully to Paul here.
1 Cor 14:4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.
1 Cor 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but {even} more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
1. One who speaks in tongues edifies himself - he builds himself up. What does Jude 20 say?
Jude 1:20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
2. One who prophesies edifies the church
3. I wish you all spoke in tongues
4. More than that (not instead of that) that you would prophesy
5. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues IN CHURCH unless he interprets.
Did you get that? Prophecy in a church service is equivilent to tongues + interpretation. Paul is not addressing one's private prayer tongue here - he is addressing the public gift of tongues.
Any believer can have a tongues for prayer. BUT - not everyone will be called to give a message in tongues during a church service.
Any believer can lay hands on the sick (Mark 16:16-18) but not all are gifted with the gift of healing.
Any believer can teach but not all are gifted as teachers to the body of Christ.
Finally - God is never going to give you something you don't want. So don't worry and lose sleep over this issue of tongues.

The bottom line is that tongues are the initial evidence the Bible gives-for the baptism in the Spirit-if you don't want to be baptised in the Spirit then you won't be-but it is what Jesus called "the promise of the Father"-in Acts 1 and Peter said that this promise was for all of us in Acts 2:39. Jesus told His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father-only those who obeyed received---all 120 of them and they all spoke in tongues.

Soj
Nov 6th 2007, 02:33 AM
I would think that if I was to address the walk in the Spirit, I would point to the fruits as ones to practise as opposing the works of the flesh. This filling of the Spirit is the communication that sounds too much like the extremes are using... thus goes to show why I was concern for you. If you see how changing our words may yet better communicate the need to walk in the Spirit as opposing to sowing to the flesh, it would differentiate the use of the term filling of the Spirit to those that use it for the extreme... and thus not misleading any that set their eyes on Jesus to help them live as His to look to the Spirit for a filling. Indeed, it is walking in the Spirit with our eyes on Christ instead of looking to the Spirit for a filling that would differentiate us from those that have gone to the extreme, would it not?Amen to all that!

poorinspirit
Nov 6th 2007, 03:28 AM
Hi Soj NZ!!

AMEN with ya and praise the Lord that we are likeminded in Christ in that after all!!

May the Lord keep us in His grace. :)

Steven3
Nov 6th 2007, 03:44 AM
Hi Godsgirl :)

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:22, but they did not speak in tongues when this happened. Why not?[/FONT]They received the indwelling of the Spirit-Just like we all do when we are saved--there is to put it simply, more-and this couldn't happen until Jesus was glorified.....John 7:39 places this glorification at his resurrection not his ascension.

John 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

of course there were minor glorifications, such as the raising of Lazarus, John 11:4, but John is talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, not the ascension:

John 12:16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then [40 days] they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him.

John 12:23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified

John 13:31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

John never records that Christ was more glorified by his ascension than he'd already been by his resurrection. So there was only "more" for some disciples who stayed in Jerusalem.

Luke 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
... 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

The Spirit, pneuma, came in John 20:22, this is for all Christians. The "power", dynamis, only came for those who obeyed Luke 24:49. Anyone who returned to Galilee did not get this.

Nor in Lexington, or Leamington Spa or Buenos Aires ;)
S.

Soj
Nov 6th 2007, 04:56 AM
Some say tongues were a gift only for the early church. Can someone explain why this is believed to be correct? (Scriptural references would be helpful).The reason this is believed is because the Scriptures teach that the gift of tongues were given for a SIGN to unbelieving Jews:

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

The first church in the book of Acts was made up of many converted Jews, but they only believed and were converted once they saw a sign from God, because they required it:

1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The Jews requiring signs from God in order to believe was something that goes way back to the Old Testament when God used Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt:

Exodus 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee. 2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. 3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: 5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. 6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. 7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. 9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

Speaking in tongues was a Jewish sign gift that was in effect while God was dealing with the Hebrew nation. It is listed twice in I Corinthians 12:8-11 & 28-30. In Paul's later lists in Ephesians 4:8-12 & Romans 12:4-8 tongues are not mentioned at all. Neither are they a "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:22,23. Paul tried to explain to the church at Corinth about the immediate future, at that time, of the gift of tongues:

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.


Excerpt from: http://www.the-highway.com/tongues_Dollar.html

It is interesting that histories of tongues movements and Pentecostal groups do not go back much before 1875. Therefore, it is admitted by all that this is an extremely modern movement. It has not been, it is not, nor can it be based on church history and a stream of witness to tongues down through the centuries. Indeed, from a few instances of it in New Testament times there has not been an occurrence of it since, unless allowance is made for the rather spotty and questionable practices among some medieval mystics.

calirighty
Nov 6th 2007, 10:40 AM
The bottom line is that tongues are the initial evidence the Bible gives-for the baptism in the Spirit-if you don't want to be baptised in the Spirit then you won't be-but it is what Jesus called "the promise of the Father"-in Acts 1 and Peter said that this promise was for all of us in Acts 2:39. Jesus told His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father-only those who obeyed received---all 120 of them and they all spoke in tongues.

This is exactly what I was referring to about reading the Bible and actually understanding what it says. In Acts 1 Jesus only appeared to the Apostles. He told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for God's Gift. Jesus was talking to the APOSTLES ONLY. He was not talking to the 120. The 120 were NOT speaking in tongues. ONLY the Apostles were. Only Peter and the eleven stood up to the crowd. No mention of the 120. When the people were cut to the heart, who did they turn to? Peter and the Apostles. They did not turn to the 120. Acts 2:42 who did they turn to for teaching and instruction? The Apostles . Acts 2:43 Who did many wonders and miraculous signs? The Apostles. Miracles were done through the apostles and those gifts were passed on by the laying on of hands. Only the Apostles had the power of passing on the gifts in this manner.

VerticalReality
Nov 6th 2007, 01:43 PM
This is exactly what I was referring to about reading the Bible and actually understanding what it says. In Acts 1 Jesus only appeared to the Apostles. He told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for God's Gift. Jesus was talking to the APOSTLES ONLY. He was not talking to the 120. The 120 were NOT speaking in tongues. ONLY the Apostles were. Only Peter and the eleven stood up to the crowd. No mention of the 120. When the people were cut to the heart, who did they turn to? Peter and the Apostles. They did not turn to the 120. Acts 2:42 who did they turn to for teaching and instruction? The Apostles . Acts 2:43 Who did many wonders and miraculous signs? The Apostles. Miracles were done through the apostles and those gifts were passed on by the laying on of hands. Only the Apostles had the power of passing on the gifts in this manner.

Honestly, what does it really matter if only the apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2? It wasn't just the apostles that spoke in tongues in Acts 10 or Acts 19, and it wasn't just a gift given to the apostles as can be evidenced by Paul's explanation of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter one bit whether it was just the apostles in Acts 2. That doesn't indicate that it was always only going to be for the apostles.

I really don't understand the need to get on here and argue about something so trivial.

Frances
Nov 6th 2007, 06:18 PM
Acts 19:1-6.

Paul came to Ephesus and found some disciples (not Apostles) and asked them "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed."

Why did Paul ask that question?
Because he realised there was something missing in their lives.
How did Paul know there was something missing? It can't have been the Fruit of the Spirit as fruit takes time to grow.
It had to be something instantly recognisable. . . then we read that he "laid hands on them , the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues . . ." so that was what Paul realised was missing, and rectified.

I suggest that if all churches taught the full council of God; which includes that God has never withdrawn the offer of His Gift of Tongues, both for private prayer and also for public 'proclamation' (which must have an interpreter) and also Leaders who themselves speak in Tongues laid hands on, and prayed for each person to be filled with the Holy Spirit when they are baptised, every Christian would have the Gift of Tongues.

Therefore, I believe, it follows that all those Christians who do not have that Gift have never been adequately taught (as I myself was not until I'd been a Christian for over 30 years) and have never submitted their tongue to the Lord.

calirighty
Nov 6th 2007, 08:26 PM
Honestly, what does it really matter if only the apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2? It wasn't just the apostles that spoke in tongues in Acts 10 or Acts 19, and it wasn't just a gift given to the apostles as can be evidenced by Paul's explanation of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter one bit whether it was just the apostles in Acts 2. That doesn't indicate that it was always only going to be for the apostles.

I really don't understand the need to get on here and argue about something so trivial.

The fact that you find the word of God "trivial" is concerning. There is a point to everything I said so if you have a question feel free to ask. However it is anything BUT trivial. The point I was making is that the idea that EVERYONE had the gifts of tongues and that it was available to EVERYONE through Holy Spirit baptism is FALSE. ONLY the Apostles were initially given those powers and those powers were only passed on by the Apostles. No record is made of ANYONE receiving gifts of the Holy Spirit apart from an Apostle being present. If you notice in Acts 8 Philip had baptized the Samaritans into the name of Jesus Christ yet they did NOT receive the spiritual gifts. Therefore Peter and John were summoned. They prayed and they STILL did not receive the gifts. Only when they LAYED ON THEIR HANDS did the Samaritans receive the gifts. Now ask yourself some questions: Who baptized them? Philip. Did Philip have the spiritual gifts? Yes he did. Was he an Apostle? No, he wasn't. Was he able to pass the spiritual gifts? According to the scripture no. Did Peter and John pass them on? Yes they did. Were they Apostles? Yes, they were. So the point is, if only the Apostles could pass on the gifts, and there is no recording of ANYONE receiving the gifts apart from the Apostles being present, then are the spiritual gifts available today? My answer is no. I never said the Corinthian Church didn't have the gifts. I never said the Apostles were the only ones that had the gift. I only stated that you could only receive the gifts FROM the Apostles. Next time read a little more closely before you call God's word "trivial".

VerticalReality
Nov 6th 2007, 08:48 PM
The fact that you find the word of God "trivial" is concerning.

Could you please point out where I stated the Word of God was trivial? Resorting to such comments does not strengthen your argument. I hope you are aware of that.


There is a point to everything I said so if you have a question feel free to ask.

I'm sure you have plenty of points as to why you believe what you do. However, I'm also certain that from my time here at this site and all the tongues threads that have come and gone, I've probably seen all the points you are going to make. Therefore, I don't believe I have a need to ask.


ONLY the Apostles were initially given those powers and those powers were only passed on by the Apostles. No record is made of ANYONE receiving gifts of the Holy Spirit apart from an Apostle being present.

Actually, nowhere in Scripture does it say it has to be through an apostle, and just because there's an apostle present doesn't mean they did anything. At the house of Cornelius Peter didn't do anything except preach the Word. Everything else was accomplished by God the Holy Spirit.


Next time read a little more closely before you call God's word "trivial".

Apparently it is not I who needs to read more closely. I never called God's Word trivial.

ProjectPeter
Nov 6th 2007, 08:56 PM
Always an amazing thing... this particular topic can get ugly as an ape and folks get all bunched up for days to come.

In other words... everyone CHILL out and discuss nice without all the fuss and muss.

calirighty
Nov 6th 2007, 10:57 PM
Could you please point out where I stated the Word of God was trivial? Resorting to such comments do not strengthen your argument. I hope you are aware of that.
Certainly. I posted my thoughts on a topic and listed supporting scripture and you called the matter "trivial". That to me means that you think that the word of God is trivial. Also that comment was not intended to strengthen my argument. I use scripture for that. However, I take offense to someone that treats me like I have never read the Bible and that my comments and the word of God are trivial. If it's so trivial to you then find another thread.


I'm sure you have plenty of points as to why you believe what you do. However, I'm also certain that from my time here at this site and all the tongues threads that have come and gone, I've probably seen all the points you are going to make. Therefore, I don't believe I have a need to ask.

You also don't have a need to comment. I came to this sight for discussion of scriptures. If you don't agree with something I say then back it up with scripture. Otherwise the number of threads you have read is irrelevant.


Actually, nowhere in Scripture does it say it has to be through an apostle, and just because there's an apostle present doesn't mean they did anything. At the house of Cornelius Peter didn't do anything except preach the Word. Everything else was accomplished by God the Holy Spirit.

You're right. It doesn't say that. But that's what happened regardless of whether it was said or not. The whole point of Cornelius is that the Jews did not believe salvation was granted to the gentiles. Even Peter did not believe until God gave him the sign of speaking in tongues. If Peter did not believe, then the passing on of gifts by his hands would not have worked because he did not have FAITH.

Apparently it is not I who needs to read more closely. I never called God's Word trivial.

If you want to discuss scripture then I would enjoy that.

godsgirl
Nov 6th 2007, 11:15 PM
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)


1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


And for those who think this blessing was only for the time of the Apostles-I give you the Word of Almighty God.....

"for this promise is to you to your children and to all who are afar off...even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:39

What promise????? Acts 1 tells us the answer to that question....Once, while he was meeting with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for what the Father had promised. Jesus said to them, "I've told you what the Father promises: for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

calirighty
Nov 6th 2007, 11:24 PM
VerticalReality,
I would like to apologize for my last post. I am new to this blog and the reason I left my last blog was because people would insult me and take personal swipes at my salvation rather than argue from the perspective of scripture. I took personal offense to your comment and realize now that there was no need. Please accept my apologies.

JR

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 12:22 AM
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)


1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, from what I understand to be proper English and Greek, the word "they" is a pronoun and should refer back to the nearest antecedent, which is the Apostles. I realize sometimes this rule is violated in literature but that doesn't change the rule. Also, if you notice in Acts 2, as I stated before it says that it was GALILEANS speaking and that they were men. Not all of the disciples were Galilean and certainly not all of them were men. If 120 people and the Apostles were all talking in tongues at the same time there certainly would have been mass confusion and it would been very difficult for anyone to understand what was going on. However, there was enough order for non-believers to understand that the MEN speaking were Galileans and that they were speaking in languages that they did not know.


And for those who think this blessing was only for the time of the Apostles-I give you the Word of Almighty God.....


"for this promise is to you to your children and to all who are afar off...even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:39
You are confusing two different issues. There was baptism of the Holy Spirit, as occurred on the Day of Pentecost and Cornelius' household. Then there is also the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit received during water baptism. They are two different things. Acts 2:38 refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit received in water baptism. Peter, said "repent and be baptized....AND you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Holy Spirit. Notice, Cornelius' household was ALREADY speaking in tongues PRIOR to water baptism, yet Peter states in Acts 2:38 that you receive the Holy Spirit when you repent and are baptized. If this were not true then why did Peter COMMAND that Cornelius and his household be baptized with water although they already showed the signs of the spirit? According to your reasoning they should have ALREADY had the Holy Spirit, which is false. Many people in the Bible did miraculous signs. Yet not all of them were spiritual. Therefore the spiritual gifts were a SIGN that salvation was available. It did NOT guarantee that you were saved.



What promise????? Acts 1 tells us the answer to that question....Once, while he was meeting with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for what the Father had promised. Jesus said to them, "I've told you what the Father promises: for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Yes it does. Now let's go back and read what the WHOLE THING said. The scripture you mentioned was from Acts 1: all parenthesis are mine.

1 In my former book, Theophilus, I (Luke) wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he (Jesus) was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he (Jesus) had chosen. 3 After his (Jesus') suffering, he (Jesus) showed himself to these men (the Apostles) and gave many convincing proofs that he (Jesus) was alive. He (Jesus) appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he (Jesus) was eating with them (the Apostles), he gave them (the Apostles) this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you (the Apostles) have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you (the Apostles) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
6 So when they (Jesus and the Apostles) met together, they (the Apostles) asked him (Jesus), "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He (Jesus) said to them: "It is not for you (the Apostles) to know the times or dates the Father has set by his (God's) own authority. 8 But you (the Apostles) will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you (the Apostles); and you (the Apostles) will be my (Jesus') witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." 9 After he (Jesus) said this, he (Jesus) was taken up before their (the Apostles) very eyes, and a cloud hid him (Jesus) from their (the Apostles) sight. 10 They (the Apostles) were looking intently up into the sky as he (Jesus) was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them (the Apostles). 11 "Men of Galilee," they (the angels) said, "why do you (the Apostles) stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you (the Apostles) into heaven, will come back in the same way you (the Apostles) have seen him (JESUS ) go into heaven."


I realize this post was long but I'm trying to make a point. This all took place PRIOR to the 120 being mentioned in verse 15. Therefor any interchanging of the Apostles and the 120 is just flat wrong.

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 12:30 AM
I realize this post was long but I'm trying to make a point. This all took place PRIOR to the 120 being mentioned in verse 15. Therefor any interchanging of the Apostles and the 120 is just flat wrong.

I disagree-the Bible says 120 and that's how many there were. Arguing that point is just silly. Yes, there was confusion for those who wouldn't believe-in fact, they called them drunkards. Also-you are confusing the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Spirit-the Bible plainly shows we can be saved without being baptised in the Holy Spirit-look at Acts 8 for example-saved AND baptised in water-yet still hadn't received this blessing. If we don't already have the indwelling Spirit when we are baptised in water-then there is no point in our baptism in water-it is meaningless.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 01:08 AM
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
If you read further up in vs. 13 it lists EXACTLY who was present:
13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
"In those days" is a common phrase used to mean " a general time period".
It doesn't mean THAT day or Luke, who was very specific in his writings would have said "that day". Luke was recounting something that happened at some point in time after the resurrection and was bringing us up to date. The verses you listed (v.14-15) were TWO DIFFERENT events that occurred at TWO DIFFERENT times. V. 1-14 are one event and v. 15-26 are another separate event AROUND the same time period as vs. 13-14.

Another interesting note is that in Acts 2:14 it states that "Peter stood up with the Eleven". Now look up the Greek word used for eleven (eendeka- Strong's #1733). This word is defined as "of the eleven disciples alive after the death of Judas". Now, If all the 120 were present, and they all just cast lots for Matthias to be the Apostle to replace Judas, then why wasn't he present? Why did Luke say he stood up with the Eleven (as defined by Strong's)? There would have been twelve, so who was missing? Also if the 120 were present then why didn't Luke say so? Remember, Luke was VERY thorough in his writings, yet he said Peter stood up with the eleven, and not the believers (those numbering 120).

th1bill
Nov 7th 2007, 01:11 AM
I disagree-the Bible says 120 and that's how many there were. Arguing that point is just silly. Yes, there was confusion for those who wouldn't believe-in fact, they called them drunkards. Also-you are confusing the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Spirit-the Bible plainly shows we can be saved without being baptised in the Holy Spirit-look at Acts 8 for example-saved AND baptised in water-yet still hadn't received this blessing. If we don't already have the indwelling Spirit when we are baptised in water-then there is no point in our baptism in water-it is meaningless.
And God has revealed the truth unto you because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. You serve Him well.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 01:21 AM
I disagree-the Bible says 120 and that's how many there were. Arguing that point is just silly. Yes, there was confusion for those who wouldn't believe-in fact, they called them drunkards. Also-you are confusing the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Spirit-the Bible plainly shows we can be saved without being baptised in the Holy Spirit-look at Acts 8 for example-saved AND baptised in water-yet still hadn't received this blessing. If we don't already have the indwelling Spirit when we are baptised in water-then there is no point in our baptism in water-it is meaningless.
My point is not about whether or not it says 120. It DOES say 120. The POINT is that the scriptures you mentioned about "going to Jerusalem and waiting for the gift the father promised" was spoken to THE APOSTLES NOT THE 120. The 120 aren't even mentioned until further down in the chapter. You are trying to take something that happened to a specific group of people (the Apostles) and apply it to the 120. That is NOT how it reads. What IS silly is taking a scripture that suits your purpose and twisting it to fit what you want it to mean. What you WANT it to say and what it ACTUALLY SAYS are two different things.

VerticalReality
Nov 7th 2007, 01:58 AM
VerticalReality,
I would like to apologize for my last post. I am new to this blog and the reason I left my last blog was because people would insult me and take personal swipes at my salvation rather than argue from the perspective of scripture. I took personal offense to your comment and realize now that there was no need. Please accept my apologies.

JR

No sweat, brother. It's quite easy on a message forum to take things the wrong way. I've done it many of times myself.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 02:01 AM
Also-you are confusing the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Spirit-the Bible plainly shows we can be saved without being baptised in the Holy Spirit-look at Acts 8 for example-saved AND baptised in water-yet still hadn't received this blessing. If we don't already have the indwelling Spirit when we are baptised in water-then there is no point in our baptism in water-it is meaningless.
I don't know if you realize this but you are actually PROVING my point. Nowhere in chapter 8 does it say they were "saved". It says they were "baptized in the name of Jesus." (v. 16). Believing in itself does not save you. There MUST be repentance. Simon the Sorcerer believed and was baptized, yet he had not TRULY repented. Also, the spiritual gifts were NEVER a sign of the INDWELLING Holy Spirit. They were ONLY a sign of BAPTISM in the Holy Spirit. Here are the questions you need to ask yourself about this passage:

1. Why did the Samaritans NOT receive the spiritual gifts? Did they not believe? Were they not baptized.

2. Why did Peter and John have to come to verify if there was true repentance? Could not Philip have done that? God could have given them the gifts without Peter and John present. Why didn't he?

3. Acts 8:15-16 Peter and John prayed they would receive the Holy Spirit. Did they? Why not?

4. When did they receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

5. Why couldn't Philip do the same thing?

6. Why all the extra steps if these gifts were promised to "all that believed"?

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 02:48 AM
You know what, it isn't worth arguing about if there were 120 or not-I believe there were-I see it obviously in scripture-but if you would like to discuss this instead of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit-then perhaps you could start another thread. No offence calirightly, but I see some strange doctrine in your posts-could you please tell me what denomination you are so that I can see where you're coming from---Of course, I have a pretty good guess. You are equating the baptism in the Spirit with salvation-I disagree.

I also never said anything about the gifts being a sign of salvation.

I do not believe that the Christians would baptise NON CHRISTIANS in water, and the Samaritans were baptised in water. As far as the "gifts" are concerned-I do not believe we are even discussing them-The tongues we receive when we are baptised in the Spirit are NOT the Spiritual gift of tongues-the gifts are for the church gathered-and when tongues are manifested as a "gift" then there are certian rules that need to be followed-"each in turn and let one interpret so that the church can be built up" for one-I see none of that when the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost or any of the other instances we have of Holy Spirit baptism. The fact that the Samaratians were saved, both men and women, AND baptised in water before they received the baptism in the Holy Spirit is obvious if you merely read the context of Acts 8.

cross crusader
Nov 7th 2007, 03:03 AM
Also, the spiritual gifts were NEVER a sign of the INDWELLING Holy Spirit. They were ONLY a sign of BAPTISM in the Holy Spirit.

Let me get this straight before i ask my question, you do not believe that the gifts are in operation today? Is that correct?

So my question is this, when i am in church or out talkin to people about Jesus and I get very precise information about people who i am talking to and even "see" them in situations and places,( let me remind you that the information that i "receive" is nothing in the conversation or anything that i should know) how is that happening if i am not unable to operate in the gifts of the spirit? O,O,O, what about when a healing takes place? (Now i know that God is doing the healing, But i still have to command it.)

Merton
Nov 7th 2007, 03:22 AM
Hi,

How does one pray in the spirit without understanding what is spoken?


1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Merton.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 03:30 AM
You know what, it isn't worth arguing about if there were 120 or not-I believe there were-but if you would like to discuss this instead of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit-then perhaps you could start another thread. I can see the Oneness (United Pentecostal) doctrine in your posts-you are equating the baptism in the Spirit with salvation-I disagree.
It's obvious that you don't pay attention to what you are reading. I am NOT Pentecostal. I disagree with MOST of their doctrine. Pentecostals are the ones that believe that "gifts of tongues" are for everyone. I believe the gifts of tongues have ceased. Where you got that I was Pentecostal is beyond me. The 120 is significant in the fact that Pentecostals use that claim to try to support their view that everyone speaks in tongues. That is why I argue against it because it is not true.


I do not believe that the Christians would baptise NON CHRISTIANS in water, and the Samaritans were baptised in water.
In my Bible, ONLY non-Christians are baptized. Baptism is for the "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). You are NOT a Christian until you believe, repent, and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.


As far as the "gifts" are concerned-I do not believe we are even discussing them-The tongues we receive when we are baptised in the Spirit are NOT the Spiritual gift of tongues-the gifts are for the church gathered-and when tongues are manifested as a "gift" then there are certian rules that need to be followed-"each in turn and let one interpret so that the church can be built up" for one-I see none of that when the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost or any of the other instances we have of Holy Spirit baptism.
That is NOT what the Bible says. It SPECIFICALLY states that tongues are for edifying the INDIVIDUAL. The INTERPRETER builds up the Church.
Paul even stated that he would "rather you prophecy" to build up the Church. It also states that the PURPOSE of speaking in tongues was as a sign to unbelievers of the confirmation of God's word. God's word was confirmed by the completion of the Bible. There is no use for tongues today.

The fact that the Samaratians were saved, both men and women, AND baptised in water before they received the baptism in the Holy Spirit is obvious if you merely read the context of Acts 8.
First of all, once again, you did not understand what i wrote. I NEVER equated baptism in the Holy Spirit with salvation. I don't even believe baptism in the Holy Spirit even exists today. Paul states in Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one Lord, one faith, and ONE baptism". That's one. NOT two.
That baptism today is water baptism as COMMANDED by Peter. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit only took place ONCE in the Bible EXACTLY as described in Acts 2. You're right it doesn't mention the rules for speaking in tongues. But in the other instances of baptism it doesn't mention anything about "tongues of fire" descending on anyone nor were there any sounds of violent wind present with any of the new converts who were speaking in tongues.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 03:48 AM
Let me get this straight before i ask my question, you do not believe that the gifts are in operation today? Is that correct?

So my question is this, when i am in church or out talkin to people about Jesus and I get very precise information about people who i am talking to and even "see" them in situations and places,( let me remind you that the information that i "receive" is nothing in the conversation or anything that i should know) how is that happening if i am not unable to operate in the gifts of the spirit? O,O,O, what about when a healing takes place? (Now i know that God is doing the healing, But i still have to command it.)
That's what I believe. People who claim to speak in tongues have been debunked time and time again over the years. I have listened to people repeat the same words over and over again and then claim each time it is something new they have said. People claim to heal. Take Benny Hinn for example. His "healings" were proven false numerous times. In the Bible,
healings were done immediately. They did not take days, weeks, months or years. They were also complete. The person was fully healed. They did NOT go back into remission. Not ONE claim has EVER been documented of a person being diagnosed with a disease by a medical specialists to have disappeared at the EXACT moment that the person was "healed." For example, show me someone with cancer who had xrays taken right before and right after they were healed. Show me someone who was cured from leprosy on the spot, just as Jesus did. Show me someone who has healed a crippled hand on th spot, like Jesus did. Show me someone who has had AIDS then no longer had it. I've never seen it. And I can't find any documentation supporting it.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 03:55 AM
Hi,

How does one pray in the spirit without understanding what is spoken?


1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Merton.

If you read further down it states "what is the purpose of speaking in tongues if the person can't understand you?". Paul was making a point that speaking in tongues did very little to build up the church OR the unbelievers. Some say tongues is a private prayer language. WHY? You can't pray in your native tongue? God has no need for a special prayer language. Is praying in tongues going to get your prayers answered faster?
Just a thought.

cross crusader
Nov 7th 2007, 04:36 AM
That's what I believe. People who claim to speak in tongues have been debunked time and time again over the years. I have listened to people repeat the same words over and over again and then claim each time it is something new they have said. People claim to heal. Take Benny Hinn for example. His "healings" were proven false numerous times. In the Bible,
healings were done immediately. They did not take days, weeks, months or years. They were also complete. The person was fully healed. They did NOT go back into remission. Not ONE claim has EVER been documented of a person being diagnosed with a disease by a medical specialists to have disappeared at the EXACT moment that the person was "healed." For example, show me someone with cancer who had xrays taken right before and right after they were healed. Show me someone who was cured from leprosy on the spot, just as Jesus did. Show me someone who has healed a crippled hand on th spot, like Jesus did. Show me someone who has had AIDS then no longer had it. I've never seen it. And I can't find any documentation supporting it.

I have seen numerous healings taken place instantly, in eye sight, shoulders in slings, unable to move rotate 360 degrees, my mother healed of cancer, xrays before and after, surgical ankles unable to move or be walked on. you keep saying show me show me, have you ever prayed in faith and actually believed for a healing? how many cancer patients have you prayed for? how many leprosy cases have you prayed for? how many blind eyes or broken bones? and let me apologize beforehand if i offend you i am sorry, but here is what i am guessing, you have maybe prayed for something that didnt happen and that is what you are basing your theology on, or someone prayed for someone close to you and they didnt get healed. sorry if that comes across to bold, i dont mean it that way, i just see a lot of people base their theology on their own experiences or lack there of, the Bible says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that God is not a respecter of persons. And the promise was for abraham and the generations to come, a lot pf people dont understand what it means to be a child of God and the rights and privileges that come along with that.

cwb
Nov 7th 2007, 05:29 AM
Hi,

How does one pray in the spirit without understanding what is spoken?


1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Merton.


The words are given by the Spirit of God.

cwb
Nov 7th 2007, 05:39 AM
If you read further down it states "what is the purpose of speaking in tongues if the person can't understand you?". Paul was making a point that speaking in tongues did very little to build up the church OR the unbelievers. Some say tongues is a private prayer language. WHY? You can't pray in your native tongue? God has no need for a special prayer language. Is praying in tongues going to get your prayers answered faster?
Just a thought.

Then why did the apostle Paul pray in tongues (a language he himself did not understand)?

Merton
Nov 7th 2007, 06:47 AM
Consider this scripture--

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Merton.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 07:45 AM
sorry if that comes across to bold, i dont mean it that way, i just see a lot of people base their theology on their own experiences or lack there of, the Bible says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that God is not a respecter of persons.
I don't take any offense but just so you know, my theology is not based on personal experiences, it is based on the word of the Bible. This is a tough subject to discuss because it's a double edged sword. Do I believe God is all powerful? Yes, I do. Do I believe he answers prayers (such as your Mother's cancer)? Yes I do. Do I believe that you PERSONALLY healed her by laying on of your hands? No i do not. That goes against scripture. The only people recorded of ANYONE doing any healing in the Bible were, Jesus, the 72 disciples he sent out, the apostles, and those on whom the apostles laid their hands. Another thing to keep in mind. Jesus didn't offer testimony. He took action. When people doubted, Jesus healed. Now if so many people in the world claim to be able to heal, why aren't they doing it? Jesus healed in the streets. Are you? Who is out in the streets healing people? Tell me what people are putting doctors out of business by standing in an emergency room and healing people. I don't see it happening. James 4:17: "He knows the good he ought to do and doesn't sins." Let me know what emergency room you will be healing in. I'm a paramedic and I would really like to see it.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 08:01 AM
Then why did the apostle Paul pray in tongues (a language he himself did not understand)?
What scripture are you referring to? It doesn't say he prayed in tongues. It said he SPEAKS in tongues and prays in Spirit. I know a lot of people who pray in spirit, including myself. And we all do it in English. Let me ask you this. If you don't know what you're saying then how do you know you're praying? How do you know you're praising God? How do you know you're praying for your needs? Prayer is to come from the heart with the right motives. That is Biblical. You can't praise God or pray for your needs from the heart if you don't know what you're saying. If it's God controlling your prayer, and you don't know what you're saying, then what you are really saying is that God is praising and praying to Himself through you. That makes no sense.

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 12:54 PM
What scripture are you referring to? It doesn't say he prayed in tongues. It said he SPEAKS in tongues and prays in Spirit. I know a lot of people who pray in spirit, including myself. And we all do it in English. Let me ask you this. If you don't know what you're saying then how do you know you're praying? How do you know you're praising God? How do you know you're praying for your needs? Prayer is to come from the heart with the right motives. That is Biblical. You can't praise God or pray for your needs from the heart if you don't know what you're saying. If it's God controlling your prayer, and you don't know what you're saying, then what you are really saying is that God is praising and praying to Himself through you. That makes no sense.


"He who speaks in a tongue-does not speak to man, but to God" 1 Corinthians 14:2--

Speaking to God is praying.

Paul equated praying in the spirit with praying in other tongues-If I pray in a tongue, MY SPIRIT Prays but my understanding is unfruitful.. So what shall I do???? I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my spirit.

Prayer in other tongues is for God's ears-not for yours, it is our spirit reaching out to God without our fleshy ideas getting in the way. We can pray prayers that are in the perfect will of God because the Holy Spirit gives us the utterance.

The fact that you insist that 120 were not present in the upper room-even though the Bible plainly says there were-brings me to the conclusion that you are totally capable of misreading scripture to try and prove your point.

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 01:15 PM
It's obvious that you don't pay attention to what you are reading. I am NOT Pentecostal. I disagree with MOST of their doctrine. Pentecostals are the ones that believe that "gifts of tongues" are for everyone. I believe the gifts of tongues have ceased. Where you got that I was Pentecostal is beyond me. The 120 is significant in the fact that Pentecostals use that claim to try to support their view that everyone speaks in tongues. That is why I argue against it because it is not true.

Sorry, that you got ahold of my post while I was editing it-I realise that you are not United Pentecostal-I came to a totally different conclusion after reading through a few of your other posts. And while I do have a strong idea of what denomination you are-I will not mention it until I'm sure-unless you would like to be open about it.

In my Bible, ONLY non-Christians are baptized. Baptism is for the "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). You are NOT a Christian until you believe, repent, and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

This is where you and I part company and where I , for a moment, thought you held some UPC doctrine-they also believe that baptism in water in the Name of Jesus is necessary for salvation.

I believe that only trusting in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ and letting Him be the proptiation for our sins is all that is necessary for salvation. Being baptised in water is a significant step=but the lack thereof does not make us unsaved.





That is NOT what the Bible says. It SPECIFICALLY states that tongues are for edifying the INDIVIDUAL. The INTERPRETER builds up the Church.
Paul even stated that he would "rather you prophecy" to build up the Church. It also states that the PURPOSE of speaking in tongues was as a sign to unbelievers of the confirmation of God's word. God's word was confirmed by the completion of the Bible. There is no use for tongues today.

You need to read your Bible again-you have totally misrepresented Paul's words-What he actually said was....

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.


Speaking in tongues in the service when interpreted brings forth edification of the Body.



First of all, once again, you did not understand what i wrote. I NEVER equated baptism in the Holy Spirit with salvation. I don't even believe baptism in the Holy Spirit even exists today. Paul states in Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one Lord, one faith, and ONE baptism". That's one. NOT two.

I've already given scriptures to show this view is false.

That baptism today is water baptism as COMMANDED by Peter. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit only took place ONCE in the Bible EXACTLY as described in Acts 2. You're right it doesn't mention the rules for speaking in tongues. But in the other instances of baptism it doesn't mention anything about "tongues of fire" descending on anyone nor were there any sounds of violent wind present with any of the new converts who were speaking in tongues.

That just isn't true-the baptism in the Spirit is a promise from God-Jesus said it was--and Peter told us that this promise was for all of us in Acts 2:39 again you need to read the whole Bible instead of a few scattered passages-for example-we have the Ephesians in Acts 19, the Gentiles in Acts 10 all being filled and all speaking in tongues.
Jesus is the Same Forever.
As far as tongues being a sign to unbelievers-this is true-but that isn't the only purpose of tongues-Paul did most of his tongue speaking when he was praying-no unbelievers present.

"I thank my God I speak in tongues more than all of you...YET in the church...."

And by the way, Pentecostals don't believe that the "gift" of tongues are for everyone. Only a few in the body of Christ are used in this gift-Paul said that the gifts are for "when you come together"-and speaking forth in a tongue, loudly enough for the church to hear-accompained by the gift of interpreation is the Bible's definition of the "gift" of tongues. Merely being baptised in the Spirit-and speaking in other tongues DOES NOT mean that one is being used in the gift of tongues.

Brother Mark
Nov 7th 2007, 01:19 PM
Settle down folks. Keep it friendly. No need to tell folks to pay attention or to get their facts straight.

VerticalReality
Nov 7th 2007, 01:47 PM
I don't take any offense but just so you know, my theology is not based on personal experiences, it is based on the word of the Bible.

That's a shame, IMO. What we gather from the Word of God should translate to experience. I think Paul's "theology" and what he believed was based strongly around what he had experienced in his close relationship with the Lord. After all, this thing is not about theology. It's about relationship.


This is a tough subject to discuss because it's a double edged sword. Do I believe God is all powerful? Yes, I do. Do I believe he answers prayers (such as your Mother's cancer)? Yes I do. Do I believe that you PERSONALLY healed her by laying on of your hands? No i do not. That goes against scripture.

I don't know of anyone who believes in healing that believes they are the ones actually doing the healing. As a matter of fact, Peter was adamant when the beggar at the gate called Beautiful was healed that he was not the source of that healing. However, had Peter not been walking by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit that was in him, that man would not have been healed. Additionally, when Tabitha was raised from the dead it happened because Peter prayed for the will of the Father. However, when Peter received what he was told to do, if he wouldn't have acted on faith with that and told Tabitha to arise, she never would have come back. There is a reason God wanted His kingdom indwelling the believer.


The only people recorded of ANYONE doing any healing in the Bible were, Jesus, the 72 disciples he sent out, the apostles, and those on whom the apostles laid their hands.

Okay. You basically just stated that anyone who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and followed Him was given power to carry out His will. Now, can you provide Scripture showing that it stopped?


When people doubted, Jesus healed.

What are you referencing here?


Now if so many people in the world claim to be able to heal, why aren't they doing it?

It seems to me they are. Just not the way you're making it out to be here. Nobody I know claims to be a healer. In fact, everyone I know believes and proclaims that God is the source of that healing power. Like cross crusader above, there are many folks experiencing the power of God in their lives and the lives of those around them. There are countless testimonies of folks being healed today exactly how folks were healed in Scripture, and I'm certainly not talking about Benny Hinn or any of the other WoF televangelists. So, the better question is not why they aren't walking in this power, because I would say they are . . . but why aren't you?


Jesus healed in the streets. Are you?

Sure. There are many folks in the streets ministering to people and doing the Lord's will.


Who is out in the streets healing people?

I could name you several just in my local area.


Tell me what people are putting doctors out of business by standing in an emergency room and healing people.

Nor do I see it happening when Jesus Christ walked the earth either. As a matter of fact, the man at the pool of Bathesda was the only one recorded as being healed. However, there were an abundance of sick folk surrounding that pool. Why didn't Jesus heal them all, and why did He choose the one He did? I don't know. That is why we must pray and seek what the Lord would have us do just as Peter did with Tabitha and just as Paul did with Publius' father.


I don't see it happening. James 4:17: "He knows the good he ought to do and doesn't sins." Let me know what emergency room you will be healing in. I'm a paramedic and I would really like to see it.

Again, I don't understand such an argument. It's always the argument that folks who don't believe in healing use to prove their point. However, you don't even see this happening in Scripture, so should we expect to see it now? Especially when so few actually walk in faith for what is shown in Scripture?

Let me ask you, what would you tell a Muslim when they ask you what makes your God the true and living God? What makes you think your theology would be able to satisfy such a question? Muslims have their own theology. Jews have their own theology as well. Why do you believe the early church didn't just resort to debates on theology?

th1bill
Nov 7th 2007, 06:09 PM
.. Please, everyone consider for just a moment, the only people on this forum with the right to tell anyone to do or to not do something are the moderators, they are the governing body here. Typing comments in the present tone will only make enemies within the Family of God when we, of all people, are commanded to love one another. Lost men and women are not allowed to post in this discussion but you do not, surely, believe that they do not read, do you? Is this the life example you wish to convey to a lost and a dying world?
.. For those of you that understand the truth enough to know that the issue of Tongues is "not" a salvation issue, why not just say so and let it go. Folks that have believed a lie will just bow their back and dig fox holes when they are hit with relentless opposition, so what is the good? It certainly does not help our given mission to witness to a lost and dying world. There is a point, established by our LORD where we kick the dust off our feet and move to a more receptive ear.

poorinspirit
Nov 7th 2007, 06:56 PM
Hi th1bill.


There is a point, established by our LORD where we kick the dust off our feet and move to a more receptive ear.

I agree.


Folks that have believed a lie will just bow their back and dig fox holes when they are hit with relentless opposition, so what is the good? It certainly does not help our given mission to witness to a lost and dying world.

Sometimes if we step back, the overall oppositions to tongues and filling of the Spirit is so the lost or the new believers do not forget the simplicity of the Gospel that has been presented from believing that more is needed besides simple faith in Jesus to have a relationship with Him. It is through the Word we get to know Him and learn of Him thus the King James Bible is always accessible whereas other means are not guaranteed. If the other means are given so we may be edified by the Word, seems to me the whole point of tongues and filling of the Spirit is mooted, only because any new believer that come to Jesus can rest in that they are sealed with that Spirit of adoption as promised and learn more of Jesus through the scriptures.

So in one respect, it is good to oppose for the sake of the simplicity of the Gospel due to the means we have access to.. the KJV Bible for edification, but as you say, once shared... and even twice, it would be time to let go and let God, in search of others that are seeking Him. Those that are into whatever issue that hints at needing more than faith in Jesus will continue to exalt something else in His name as if that makes more of a difference in the life of a believer. One can only hope that those that are not into it, reminds everyone for the sake of the lost as to what the simplicity of the Gospel is in regards to our faith so that new believers will not wonder if they are really saved.

Titus 3: 7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

One has to trust the Lord that the moderators know when to close a thread as posters look to the Lord for the correcting to take place as we love one another with no condemnation or personal attacks... and we need the Lord's help with that even. Thankfully, the site is set-up to have moderators.

Titus 3: 1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 2To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. 3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Thanks for the reminder, th1bill

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 08:20 PM
That just isn't true-the baptism in the Spirit is a promise from God-Jesus said it was--and Peter told us that this promise was for all of us in Acts 2:39 again you need to read the whole Bible instead of a few scattered passages-for example-we have the Ephesians in Acts 19, the Gentiles in Acts 10 all being filled and all speaking in tongues.
Jesus is the Same Forever.
I would appreciate it if you quit assuming that I have not read the whole Bible. I've read more than you would probably care to know. Once again you are claiming something the Bible simply does not say. It says in ACTS 2:39 that "you will receive the GIFT of the HOLY Spirit". It says "repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. AND you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I have studied this in every Bible version and I have studied this in the original Greek. It does not say repent and be baptized because your sins are already forgiven. It says repent and be baptized FOR the forgiveness of sins. AND you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It does not say you will be BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise you would be claiming that ALL Christians are Baptized with the Holy Spirit and that simply is not true.
If water baptism is not necessary then why do it? You claim that it is sign of faith but not required. Wouldn't speaking in tongues, prophesying , and healing people be a BETTER sign of faith? So why do both? Why would Jesus and Peter BOTH command water baptism? You could take a person off of the street and baptize him in water and anyone who was not there would never know unless you told them. Now if that same person walked in, started speaking in tongues, prophesying , and healing people, I would not need to be told that he was baptized in the Holy Spirit. So, again. Why do it? Why did Paul say in Ephesians 4:5 "there is ONE baptism? Clearly at the time there were TWO baptisms taking place.
As far as tongues being a sign to unbelievers-this is true-but that isn't the only purpose of tongues-Paul did most of his tongue speaking when he was praying-no unbelievers present.

You still have not answered why God would have someone pray in tongues in private. If the person doesn't know what they are saying then how do they know they are praying to God. How do you know you're asking for what you need? Prayer is supposed to come from the heart for the purpose of praising God and asking for our needs to be met. You can't do that if you don't know what you are saying.

calirighty
Nov 7th 2007, 09:20 PM
I don't know of anyone who believes in healing that believes they are the ones actually doing the healing. As a matter of fact, Peter was adamant when the beggar at the gate called Beautiful was healed that he was not the source of that healing. However, had Peter not been walking by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit that was in him, that man would not have been healed. Additionally, when Tabitha was raised from the dead it happened because Peter prayed for the will of the Father. However, when Peter received what he was told to do, if he wouldn't have acted on faith with that and told Tabitha to arise, she never would have come back. There is a reason God wanted His kingdom indwelling the believer.
I never said that anyone CLAIMS they are doing the healing. What I am saying is that people being healed, the same as they were, in the new testament, are not taking place. You mentioned Tabitha. Who can claim to have resurrected anyone? No one I know. Who has made AIDS disappear from someone? No one I know. I live in the second largest city in the country and I worked in the medical field on the streets for over 5 years. Whether I believed in modern day healings or not, if they were happening I would have seen them.


Okay. You basically just stated that anyone who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and followed Him was given power to carry out His will. Now, can you provide Scripture showing that it stopped?
I stated no such thing. Read it again. ONLY the apostles had the ability to pass on the gifts. Philip was a disciple, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and possessed multiple gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet when he baptized the Samaritans he had to send for Peter and John so they could impart the gifts. Why? Philip did many miraculous signs yet Simon the sorcerer did not try to buy the gifts from him. He asked Peter and John. Why? If the gifts were readily available through Holy Spirit baptism then the Samaritans should have received the gifts without assistance of the apostles. Yet Peter and John had to go all the way there to accomplish this. Timothy did many miraculous signs yet he did not pass on the gift. Why? There are only two instances in the New Testament of the Spirit being poured out on someone. The Day of Pentecost (for the Jews) and Cornelius' household (for the Gentiles). All other instances of people receiving the gifts came from the laying on of the apostles hands. Acts 8-14-19.


Sure. There are many folks in the streets ministering to people and doing the Lord's will.
That's not what I said. I also see many people in the streets doing the Lord's will. But they are not healing people.


I could name you several just in my local area.
Good. Let me know where I can find the documentation about them resurrecting someone. Or curing AIDS. Or restoring a crippled limb. Or making the blind see.


Nor do I see it happening when Jesus Christ walked the earth either. As a matter of fact, the man at the pool of Bathesda was the only one recorded as being healed. However, there were an abundance of sick folk surrounding that pool. Why didn't Jesus heal them all, and why did He choose the one He did? I don't know. That is why we must pray and seek what the Lord would have us do just as Peter did with Tabitha and just as Paul did with Publius' father.
I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you mispoke:

Matthew 4:24: News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them.

Matthew 8:16: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

Matthew 12:15: Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick, [/quote]
With that being said, the difference between Jesus and the people of today is that the Bible, is the inspired word of God. If it says Jesus healed, I believe it. Claims today are NOT the inspired word of God.

1 John 4:1: Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Again, I don't understand such an argument. It's always the argument that folks who don't believe in healing use to prove their point. However, you don't even see this happening in Scripture, so should we expect to see it now? Especially when so few actually walk in faith for what is shown in Scripture?
Actually you do see it in scripture. And I hold people to the same standards as that of the bible.


Let me ask you, what would you tell a Muslim when they ask you what makes your God the true and living God? What makes you think your theology would be able to satisfy such a question? Muslims have their own theology. Jews have their own theology as well. Why do you believe the early church didn't just resort to debates on theology?
First I would tell them that the Bible is the inspired word of God which is proven by eyewitness testimony and historical documentation. The same can not be said about the others.

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 09:27 PM
You still have not answered why God would have someone pray in tongues in private. If the person doesn't know what they are saying then how do they know they are praying to God. How do you know you're asking for what you need? Prayer is supposed to come from the heart for the purpose of praising God and asking for our needs to be met. You can't do that if you don't know what you are saying.


Praying in tongues can be done anywhere and at almost any time after you are baptised in the Holy Spirit. (1 Timothy 2:8).

Here are several reasons why it is good for Christians to spend a lot of their time praying in tongues.

1. He who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks to God (1 Corinthians 14:2). That is, he prays. But the prayers he prays are prayed with his spirit in words given by the Holy Spirit. Therefore these prayers will be effective because they are according to the will of God.

2. Speaking in tongues enables us to pray much. God says, "Pray without ceasing." (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

This ability will help us to be "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:18) even when our minds are tired and we don't know how or what to pray. (Romans 8:26,27)

3. Speaking in tongues allows us to pray for things and situations we don't know about. There are a lot of important things happening or threatening to happen in life that we don't know about. But praying in tongues helps us to pray for these things also - that God steps in and changes these things or people we don't know about and we certainly don't know how to pray for.

4. "He who speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself." (1 Corinthians 14:4). This means that speaking in tongues builds up our spiritual life. Jude exhorts the Christians as follows: "But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God." (Jude 20,21). Much speaking in tongues helps us to be deeply conscious of the fact that God lives in us. Speaking in tongues therefore strengthens our relationship with God which will result in greater love and faith being known in and through us than we would otherwise experience


Also according to the Word there are 3 baptisms

1. At the moment of salvation-the Holy Spirit baptises us into the body of Christ--"for by one Spirit you were all baptised into one body"--the Holy Spirit is our baptiser and the Body of Christ is what we are baptised into

2. All Christians should follow the Lords' command to be water baptised--Another Christian is our baptiser and water is what we are baptised into=Go therefore into all nations, making disciples baptising them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit


3. Jesus baptises believers in the Holy Spirit--Jesus is our baptiser and the Holy Spirit is what we are baptised into.


Actually, I am claiming that you are not baptised in the Holy Spirit because the evidence today is the same evidence that it was then. (speaking in tongues as the Spirit enables you) In your opinion, that means you are not saved.

poorinspirit
Nov 7th 2007, 10:27 PM
Hi godsgirl,

As much as you place an emphasis on tongues; why is it that prophesying is not the gift sought over tongues? You place the value of tongues as one that edifies self, but in truth, it does not say that it builds up your spiritual life, but it does say that as far as your own understanding goes, it is unfruitful.

1 Corinthians 14: 13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Also, can you explain these verses which seem to imply that women are not to speak in tongues at all? Verse 36 seems to imply that God would not give women the gift of tongues... and that the "all" in reference in other verses was Paul speaking to the "all" men.

1 Corinthians 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

You know what bad about this nect point" Bible translations. The KJV was transcribed from the Received Text or the Textus Receptus while other versions were transcribed from the Alexandria files where gnostics writings had come from which is indicative of them taking license and liberty with God's Words. In your version of Romans 8:26-27, you are not noticing a very clear grammarical error.

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 with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

In verse 27, how can "he" being a third person that searches our hearts AND knows the mind of the Spirit, suddenly be "the Spirit"? The KJV explains HOW the Holy Spirit intercedes with groans not uttered as in no sound, quite conrary to your version... as it goes on to explain that he is none other than Jesus Christ as the other third Person sent to be only Our Mediator.

Romans 8: 26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

We know it is Jesus as He is speaking about being "inbetween" us as the word midst is used in the Greek properly.

Matthew 18: 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Hebrews 4: 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Thus Jesus is more than a go to for the forgiveness of sins as far as the scriptures declare, thus Him being the ONLY mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus... should be all the more apparent that He is the One we should be relating to. It is by Him, we have relations with the Father. With all the invitations pointing to Jesus and none to the Holy Spirit, it should be obvious that if we are led by the Spirit of God, we would be seeking to honor Jesus... for the moment we stop, we are no longer honoring the Father. So this prayer life of speaking in tongues is one based on errant bible versions because the KJV gives peace in that when we do not know what to pray, like as if you are in a panic and no time to pray, Jesus, Whom searches the heart, knows the mind of the Spirit as we rest in the Comforter being in us as promised for coming to Jesus... that Jesus being Our Mediator will intercede for us "according to the will of God".

So basically, three queries.

Why is tongues talked about & sought more than prophesying?

Doesn't scriptures say plainly that women do not speak in tongues?

Doesn't the KJV gives more peace in God's Words to everyone and in line with other scriptures in the roles given of the Holy Spirit and Jesus as opposed to the other versions that seem to point in praying in tongues to verbalize what we do not know what to pray for... and not everyone has this gift so how can that be fair or a comfort to all?

Take it to the Lord Jesus in prayer, if you would please. I shall say a prayer for you.

clawmute
Nov 7th 2007, 10:39 PM
Just to make this thread interesting and post something that's going to be used eventually anyway . . .




:lol:

Take that you bunch of charismatics!!!

Has knowledge also vanished? Did tongues cease at the same time as knowledge? You strain at a gnat and swallow a ...........well you know the rest. :kiss:

clawmute
Nov 7th 2007, 10:48 PM
Thank the Lord that he convicted, saved and baptized me in his Holy Spirit outside of any church doors before I found out all the things he couldn't do, wouldn't do, stopped doing and never wanted to do.

If had known how powerless he had become by being stripped by denominationalism I might have stayed a heathen.

Dispensationalism "dispensing with Gods word, power and annointing. Thank God I escaped the hands of the naysayers.

I was also deceived I suppose when after fourteen years of a childless marriage that God interpreted the tongue I was praying in and told me my wife was pregnant. (her body killed my sperm on contact)

The lab said "It's a nice positive result". The result is now a fine 26 year old Christian man, my son.

Yes. The gifts and calling of God are without recall. Praise be for it too!!

VerticalReality
Nov 7th 2007, 10:56 PM
What I am saying is that people being healed, the same as they were, in the new testament, are not taking place.

And you know this how?


You mentioned Tabitha. Who can claim to have resurrected anyone?

God can, and He still does it. There are countless testimonies of folks being raised from the dead.


No one I know.

And therein lies the truth of the problem you are having. You are allowing your own experience to determine what you believe.


Who has made AIDS disappear from someone?

God.


No one I know.

Allowing experience to decide belief.


I live in the second largest city in the country and I worked in the medical field on the streets for over 5 years. Whether I believed in modern day healings or not, if they were happening I would have seen them.

Why would you see them?


I stated no such thing. Read it again. ONLY the apostles had the ability to pass on the gifts.

Where is that in the bible? Paul says that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills . . . not as the apostles will.


Philip was a disciple, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and possessed multiple gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet when he baptized the Samaritans he had to send for Peter and John so they could impart the gifts.

They didn't impart gifts.


Why? Philip did many miraculous signs yet Simon the sorcerer did not try to buy the gifts from him. He asked Peter and John. Why?

What gifts did he attain when he asked?


Timothy did many miraculous signs yet he did not pass on the gift. Why? There are only two instances in the New Testament of the Spirit being poured out on someone. The Day of Pentecost (for the Jews) and Cornelius' household (for the Gentiles). All other instances of people receiving the gifts came from the laying on of the apostles hands. Acts 8-14-19.

What apostles laid hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) here?

Acts 13:1-3
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.


That's not what I said. I also see many people in the streets doing the Lord's will. But they are not healing people.

The Lord's will is for people to be healed. That's a part of it.


Good. Let me know where I can find the documentation about them resurrecting someone. Or curing AIDS. Or restoring a crippled limb. Or making the blind see.

People don't go around allowing the Lord to use them so they can satisfy the unbelief of folks who should already believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. They go around allowing the Lord to use them in order to set the captive free. Disproving unbelieving Christians is not at the top of the Lord's agenda, IMO.


I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you mispoke:

No, I didn't. Thanks anyway.:)


Matthew 4:24: News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them.

Those who came to Him in faith always got healed.


Matthew 8:16: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

Well would you look at that . . . "many who were brought to Him". It's amazing what the Lord will do when folks come to Him in faith.


Matthew 12:15: Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick,

Again, that faith thing is an important ingredient.

Here's one for you . . .

Matthew 13:54-58
When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.


With that being said, the difference between Jesus and the people of today is that the Bible, is the inspired word of God. If it says Jesus healed, I believe it. Claims today are NOT the inspired word of God.

His inspired Word also says that those who believe in Him will do the same works as He . . .

And His Word also says that many signs will follow them that believe . . .



1 John 4:1: Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

False prophets deny the Lord and the true path to salvation. I don't think we're talking about false prophets here.


Actually you do see it in scripture. And I hold people to the same standards as that of the bible.

No, you see results from those who walk by faith . . . not by sight.


First I would tell them that the Bible is the inspired word of God which is proven by eyewitness testimony and historical documentation. The same can not be said about the others.

Muslims will tell you that their scriptures are inspired and have eyewitness testimony along with historical documentation. What else you got?

Do you have any of this?

1 Corinthians 2:4-5
And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

godsgirl
Nov 7th 2007, 11:57 PM
Hi godsgirl,

As much as you place an emphasis on tongues; why is it that prophesying is not the gift sought over tongues? You place the value of tongues as one that edifies self, but in truth, it does not say that it builds up your spiritual life, but it does say that as far as your own understanding goes, it is unfruitful.


1 Corinthians 14: 13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Also, can you explain these verses which seem to imply that women are not to speak in tongues at all? Verse 36 seems to imply that God would not give women the gift of tongues... and that the "all" in reference in other verses was Paul speaking to the "all" men.

1 Corinthians 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

You know what bad about this nect point" Bible translations. The KJV was transcribed from the Received Text or the Textus Receptus while other versions were transcribed from the Alexandria files where gnostics writings had come from which is indicative of them taking license and liberty with God's Words. In your version of Romans 8:26-27, you are not noticing a very clear grammarical error.

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 with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

In verse 27, how can "he" being a third person that searches our hearts AND knows the mind of the Spirit, suddenly be "the Spirit"? The KJV explains HOW the Holy Spirit intercedes with groans not uttered as in no sound, quite conrary to your version... as it goes on to explain that he is none other than Jesus Christ as the other third Person sent to be only Our Mediator.

Romans 8: 26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

We know it is Jesus as He is speaking about being "inbetween" us as the word midst is used in the Greek properly.

Matthew 18: 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Hebrews 4: 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Thus Jesus is more than a go to for the forgiveness of sins as far as the scriptures declare, thus Him being the ONLY mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus... should be all the more apparent that He is the One we should be relating to. It is by Him, we have relations with the Father. With all the invitations pointing to Jesus and none to the Holy Spirit, it should be obvious that if we are led by the Spirit of God, we would be seeking to honor Jesus... for the moment we stop, we are no longer honoring the Father. So this prayer life of speaking in tongues is one based on errant bible versions because the KJV gives peace in that when we do not know what to pray, like as if you are in a panic and no time to pray, Jesus, Whom searches the heart, knows the mind of the Spirit as we rest in the Comforter being in us as promised for coming to Jesus... that Jesus being Our Mediator will intercede for us "according to the will of God".

So basically, three queries.

Why is tongues talked about & sought more than prophesying?

Doesn't scriptures say plainly that women do not speak in tongues?

Doesn't the KJV gives more peace in God's Words to everyone and in line with other scriptures in the roles given of the Holy Spirit and Jesus as opposed to the other versions that seem to point in praying in tongues to verbalize what we do not know what to pray for... and not everyone has this gift so how can that be fair or a comfort to all?

Take it to the Lord Jesus in prayer, if you would please. I shall say a prayer for you.

1. Tongues is the initial evidence the Bible gives for being baptised in the Spirit-Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Acts 10:46 again, for the umpteenth time-this is NOT the gift of tongues-the gifts are for the church gathered-Paul made that plain in First Corinthians, 14:26,
“Then how is it, When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be for building up.”

Notice how Paul spoke of "you" and "every one of you." This verse doesn't separate the congregation into male and female! Even in the KJV, women or wives are not excluded in this verse! All of the members had a contribution to make!

and although all who are baptised in the Spirit can pray and praise in other tongues-they are not all used in the gift of tongues., and the gift of tongues isn't talked about more than prophesying. Tongues are merely the first evidence of Spirit baptism-for EVERYONE. They ALL spoke in tongues-not just some.

2. No scripture does NOT say that women do not speak in tongues-Paul said, "I want you all to speak in tongues."

3. I do not worship the King James Bible-but that version makes it plain too-all of us can be baptised in the Spirit and speak to God in tongues, but NOT all of us will be used in the gift of tongues.



I challenge you to find scripture where merely speaking in tongues as prayer is called "the gift of tongues".



If I thought you really wanted an answer to your questions-I would give you more scripture but you obviously haven't been reading what's already been written because most of the above questions have been answered already, more than once.
Jesus is our baptiser in the Spirit-in the Bible the initial evidence of this baptism is speaking in tongues as the Spirit enables us. You can argue all you want-but that doesn't change the Word of God.

"they received the Holy Spirit just as we have---for we heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." Acts 10:46

calirighty
Nov 8th 2007, 01:00 AM
[/color]

And you know this how?
It's very simple. Not only because I have seen it, no other person in the medical profession that I know (which includes MANY doctors and nurses) have never seen it. Just as the Bible is available to everyone, so would be God's miracles. He didn't hide them. He did them in public for ALL to view. Believers and nonbelievers alike.



God can, and He still does it. There are countless testimonies of folks being raised from the dead.
Testimonies are not documented fact. Surely, having a Dr. in front of your name, you understand the difference between clinical death and physical death. When Jesus was resurrected it was from PHYSICAL death. When Lazarus was resurrected it was from PHYSICAL death. When Tabitha was resurrected it was from PHYSICAL death. As I said earlier, I am a Paramedic. I've defibrillated numerous people who were not breathing and had no pulse. They then began breathing and had a pulse. Are you so saying that those people were resurrected? Show me ONE documented case where someone was confirmed PHYSICALLY dead and was resurrected. I don't want testimonies. I want you to show me documentation.


And therein lies the truth of the problem you are having. You are allowing your own experience to determine what you believe.
Actually you have it backwards. I read the Bible and believe what it says. My experiences CONFIRM what I have read.



God.
Nice escape answer. Once again you offer no documentation, no proof, not even a testimony.




Allowing experience to decide belief.
Once again, my experiences are CONFIRM what I believe. Not the other way around.


Why would you see them?
Because that is what God did. He did public displays not only to convince believers but to reinforce the faith of the believers.


Where is that in the bible? Paul says that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills . . . not as the apostles will.
Then there would have been no need for Peter and John to go to the Samaritans. Who said it was the apostles will? God said he would give them powers and he did. Do you really believe that ALL believers had the same powers as the apostles?


They didn't impart gifts.
Really?
Acts 8:17-19: 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19 and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

Acts 19:6: 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me


What gifts did he attain when he asked?
What does that question have to do with the fact that the apostles had the power to impart the gifts? Either Acts 8:18 is telling the truth or the Bibles lies. You decide.



What apostles laid hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) here?

Acts 13:1-3
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

It's simple. Paul was already an apostle by the time chapter 13 was written. He was knocked of of his horse on the road to Damascus DIRECTLY by Jesus who DIRECTLY called on him to be an apostle. He already had the gifts. Barnabas was first mentioned in Acts 4 and was one of the the 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecost. So he would have been baptized by an apostle, which would include the laying on of hands. So I guess I don't understand why you would ask this.



The Lord's will is for people to be healed. That's a part of it.
The Lord's will is also to follow the scriptures.



People don't go around allowing the Lord to use them so they can satisfy the unbelief of folks who should already believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. They go around allowing the Lord to use them in order to set the captive free. Disproving unbelieving Christians is not at the top of the Lord's agenda, IMO.
Are you serious? Are we reading the same Bible? Because that is EXACTLY what Jesus did. Try reading Matthew. Jesus did MANY miracles for the 12 disciples when they had lack of faith. I don't have enough time to list them all for you.


No, I didn't. Thanks anyway.:)
Yes you did. You gave a very specific example and those scriptures say the OPPOSITE of what you claim.


Those who came to Him in faith always got healed.
True I never disputed that.


Well would you look at that . . . "many who were brought to Him". It's amazing what the Lord will do when folks come to Him in faith.
So you are claiming that ONLY those who have faith are healed? I have seen MANY people who claimed to have heal someone and then when it didn't work turn around and blame the sick person for lack of faith. Can you find me an example where Jesus claimed to heal someone and then blame the sick or injured when it didn't work? The whole purpose of doing the miracles was to declare the word of God, proclaim it as truth and to confirm it. That has all been accomplished with the completion of the New Testament. The word of God has been declared. It no longer needs to be declared verbally because it is written. It has already been proclaimed as the TRUE WRITTEN word of God. It has already been confirmed by the miracles DOCUMENTED in the written New Testament. By seeking miraculous gifts today you actually are actually showing a lack of faith in the scriptures. My faith is bound by what I have read and KNOW to be true. NOT by what I see.



Again, that faith thing is an important ingredient.
I agree. Faith is always important. But, again, placing requirements on the sick and injured kind of defeats the whole purpose, don't you think?



And His Word also says that many signs will follow them that believe . . .
It sure does. Now who are picking up snakes? Who are drinking deadly poisons? Who are driving out demons?


Muslims will tell you that their scriptures are inspired and have eyewitness testimony along with historical documentation. What else you got?

Do you have any of this?
Actually I have the written word of God and that's all I need. A lot of the Quran was reworded from the Old Testament. Claiming something is inspired doesn't mean that it is. Jesus doesn't just claim. He proves. There are historical documents that Mohammed existed. That does NOT prove he was a prophet. No historical documents that I know of CONFIRM him as a prophet.

2 Timothy 4:1-8 1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Steven3
Nov 8th 2007, 01:14 AM
Hi godsgirl :)
1. Tongues is the initial evidence the Bible gives for being baptised in the Spirit-Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Acts 10:46 again, for the umpteenth time-this is NOT the gift of tongues-the gifts are for the church gathered-Paul made that plain in.......You're absolutely right, there is no connection between the intelligible tongues in Acts and the unintelligible tongues in Corinth. Anyone who maintains otherwise simply isn't reading what Paul says about tongues in Corinth, that "no one understands him" - which is the exact opposite of Pentecost.

btw - as I asked in the last post of the previous thread on this, I personally would be very interested to see a transcript of a translation (per Paul's instructions, and I recall you saying per your church's practice). If they are from the Spirit and for spiritual encouragment the translations should be taped or written down at least occasionally.

God bless
Steven

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 01:38 AM
Hi Godsgirl,

I only responded to the post you had posted. To go over all that you have posted would deviate from the point regarding your statements in the post I am replying to.. as in case in point:


Tongues is the initial evidence the Bible gives for being baptised in the Spirit-Acts 2:4,

That is looking at the action and not what the action is doing, declaring the wonderful works of God in foreign languages. I read on from that verse. That served as a sign for the unbelieving Jews that came from foreign countries to get their attention.

Acts 2: 5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

I do note that when you seperated the "initial tongues" from the "gifts", Paul explained the gifts the same way the initial tongues was being used.

1 Corinthians 14: 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

So I do not see how you can seperate them as you did, thus you can see where I am at and why I do not see how you believe that way. Feel free to clarify, only if you wish to.


Tongues are merely the first evidence of Spirit baptism-for EVERYONE. They ALL spoke in tongues-not just some.

1 Corinthians 12: 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

I am sure you are aware of this as I just connected the "initial evidence" as serving a purpose which the gifts of tongues were doing... thus you can see why I do not see how you could make that statement. Also, do note that any lost or new believer in Christ in reading that statement, is going to think that to know they are baptized with the Holy Spirit initially, they will speak in tongues and that is not what tongues were given for.. not a sign for believers for the way you are exalting its use... but for the unbelievers.


2. No scripture does NOT say that women do not speak in tongues-Paul said, "I want you all to speak in tongues."

I just gave you the scriptures. How come you did not address it to explain why Paul said that specifically about women? I told you in the post you responded to that when Paul was referring to "all", that did not mean it included women since men were to be leaders in the churches. The offices of elders and deacons all had to be a husband of one wife. So, there is precedent for that as well as the verse below reposted again for you.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Corinthians 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I challenge you to find scripture where merely speaking in tongues as prayer is called "the gift of tongues".

Paul spoke of it in the same chapter with it as gifts.. from the very beginning.

1 Corinthians 14: 1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2For 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. 3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

And since Romans 8:26,27 in the NIV is so way off as to the actual meaning in the King James Version, I shall repeat the question for your version only. How is it that all saints are to have peace in reading the NIV of Romans 8:26,27 when they do not know what to pray and yet they don't "pray in tongues"?

I think I am backing you in a corner as in putting you on the spot. I do not mean to argue with you or debate, but I believe I am asking questions for you to think about... to pray to Jesus about. I love you as my sister in Christ so know that when I put this link available for you, it is so that you may be made aware.. to allow Jesus to lift your eyes above this "tongues" as it is also evident in use in the non-Christian world as reported three quarters down the web page under the paragraph heading: "Is speaking in tongues only in the Christian world?" http://www.speaking-in-tongues.org/

calirighty
Nov 8th 2007, 01:38 AM
The fact that you insist that 120 were not present in the upper room-even though the Bible plainly says there were-brings me to the conclusion that you are totally capable of misreading scripture to try and prove your point.
The Bible plainly says there were? Hmm. No. My Bible says THEY were all in one room. THEY does not refer back to the 120. That is NOT proper English OR Greek. If it were plain then it would have said "the apostles and all the believers" but that's NOT what it says. It's funny that you accuse me of misreading the scripture. I POSTED YOU THE ENTIRE CHAPTER!!! I copied it and then passage by passage went over the context. I made a point by point rebuttal that showed you how I got to my conclusion. If you disagree, fine. But at least make an attempt to explain why. Don't make allegations with no basis or support. It only makes you seem uneducated. Especially when the ONLY scripture you refer to is Acts 1:15 and Acts 2:1. You CAN NOT read those two scriptures WITHOUT reading the whole thing. Any 4th grade English teacher will teach you the same thing. SHOW ME where I was grammatically incorrect or reading out of context (according to literary standards, not yours) in ANY of those verses. Just by CLAIMING I misread does not PROVE I misread. Just like my old math teacher use to say, "show me the work". Now, if you have an EDUCATED point by point rebuttal then I would like to hear it. If you're just going to try to insult me again then keep it to yourself.

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 01:53 AM
http://www.speaking-in-tongues.org/

If you wish to get straight to that topic, scroll down three quarters of the way to the fourth section entitled by this post. Then go back and read all of it.

More links on historical accounts as well as edification:

http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/

I know that some of you may have heard it all, but read it all anyway. You may have missed something for you to discern the activity you are engaging in by.

You may know about it in general, but really look at it, and ask the Lord to help you know the truth since we are to discern all experiences by the scriptures.

I would really advise using the King James Version. I can only hope the Lord Jesus shall lead you to do that.

Steven3
Nov 8th 2007, 02:29 AM
The Bible plainly says there were? Hmm. No. My Bible says THEY were all in one room. THEY does not refer back to the 120.

Correct, it was just the 12. Hence Peter "these men".

jeffreys
Nov 8th 2007, 02:49 AM
The simple answer to the question, posed by your thread title is this: NO

Glossolalia was around for centuries before Christianity was.

amazzin
Nov 8th 2007, 03:04 AM
http://www.speaking-in-tongues.org/

If you wish to get straight to that topic, scroll down three quarters of the way to the fourth section entitled by this post. Then go back and read all of it.

More links on historical accounts as well as edification:

http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/

I know that some of you may have heard it all, but read it all anyway. You may have missed something for you to discern the activity you are engaging in by.

You may know about it in general, but really look at it, and ask the Lord to help you know the truth since we are to discern all experiences by the scriptures.

I would really advise using the King James Version. I can only hope the Lord Jesus shall lead you to do that.

Hello

This article is poorly written and unsubstantiated. Basically the article is untruthful.

History records a number of events. Many Pentecostal history books references these events. These events pre-date Azuza street.

First of all, speaking in tongues is refered to in history books as "glossolalia. It is often documented accompanying other spiritual manifestations and not only the "speaking in tongues". Some of the wording may be shocking but remember this is how it was expressed in the writings of the time mostly due to a lack of understanding.

Irenaeus (130 Ad) makes a reference to the "charismata": "Wherefore, also, those who are in truth the disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles].... Some do certainly and truly drive out devils.... Others have foreknowledge of things to come; they see visions and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them."

Montanus (156 AD) fought against the liturgical and official ministry swing in the church of his day. He called upon his followers to live in a state of frequent ecstasy and vision."

Tertullian (160 AD)also makes an ambiguous reference: "Now all these signs (spiritual gifts such as psalm, vision, prayer in ecstasy) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty."

Chrysostom (345-407 AD). Charismatic gifts almost disappeared. Speaking in tongues associated with a gift of languages provided to missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and others, languages to be used in their missionary work among strange people.

Reformation (5th Century). History records that manifestations were almost nonexistent. Some accounts of "'Spirituals' who preached against the worldliness of the clergy, the hyperinstitutionalism; and who were themselves rather quick to respond to what they thought were the direct impulses of the Holy Spirit."

Vincent Ferrer (1351-1419) preached in the western Mediterranean area. His speaking, and the results of it, bear a strange resemblance to modern Pentecostalism. There are reports of many manifestations, including shaking and possibly glossolalia, and also reports of healings. The downside of Ferrer's work was how he persecuted and tortured Jews, in order to put fear into them and force conversions.

16th century onwards.

Radical Anabaptists in Germany - speaking in tongues were reported, though infrequently.
Camisards and Jansenists in France - again infrequent speaking in tongues.
Shakers in America. Mother Ann Lee "was often found singing or praying in an unknown tongue." "Respecting such as speak in an unknown tongue, they have a strong faith in this gift; and think a person greatly favored who has the gift of tongues; and at certain times, when the mind is overloaded with a fiery strong zeal, it must have vent some way or other; their faith, or belief, at the time being in this gift, and a will strikes the mind according to their faith; and then such break out in a fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not what, as I have done several times."17th and 18th Century : Many pietists started to emphasize a spiritual expereince after conversion. For instance, some 17th century Puritans, notably Thomas Goodwin and John Owen, held that in this experience the Spirit seals the believer with confidence in being a beloved child of God. They didn't see a connection between the experience and signs or wonders; they saw it mostly as a blessing of enlightenment.

(Ref: Pre Pentecostal History Vol IV, Zondervan Press 1998)

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 03:06 AM
Awwww... you peeked! :)

Tell me, you ruin alot of movies by telling people the ending?!! :)

I bet you come by, see somebody reading a mystery novel and then blurt out,"The butler did it." :)

Well thanks anyway for the reply, jeffreys, but just in case somebody did not know about this, may they also receive an awareness as well as edification in regards to the faith in Jesus Christ so that they may rest in Him.

amazzin
Nov 8th 2007, 03:08 AM
I would really advise using the King James Version. I can only hope the Lord Jesus shall lead you to do that.

This is not a KJV only forum. People are free to use whatever version they please. We all have our favorite versions and we will often disagree which one is best but we respect the fact that we are in the Word and reading the Word and being fed by the Word.

jeffreys
Nov 8th 2007, 03:26 AM
Awwww... you peeked! :)

Tell me, you ruin alot of movies by telling people the ending?!! :)

I bet you come by, see somebody reading a mystery novel and then blurt out,"The butler did it." :)

Well thanks anyway for the reply, jeffreys, but just in case somebody did not know about this, may they also receive an awareness as well as edification in regards to the faith in Jesus Christ so that they may rest in Him.

I'm a little confused here. Could you clarify please? Thank you! ;)

amazzin
Nov 8th 2007, 03:27 AM
Awwww... you peeked! :)

Tell me, you ruin alot of movies by telling people the ending?!! :)

I bet you come by, see somebody reading a mystery novel and then blurt out,"The butler did it." :)

Well thanks anyway for the reply, jeffreys, but just in case somebody did not know about this, may they also receive an awareness as well as edification in regards to the faith in Jesus Christ so that they may rest in Him.

Hmmm,....do I know you by another username?

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 03:32 AM
Hi amazzin,

From what you have posted, I see it only as a confirmation of what has been reported at those links.

1 Corinthians 14: 31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


Vincent Ferrer (1351-1419) preached in the western Mediterranean area. His speaking, and the results of it, bear a strange resemblance to modern Pentecostalism. There are reports of many manifestations, including shaking and possibly glossolalia, and also reports of healings. The downside of Ferrer's work was how he persecuted and tortured Jews, in order to put fear into them and force conversions.

I know that your source is done in support of Pentecostalism so this bear weight in regards to informations given at those links. So for all this moment of many manifestations of God working through him, the guy resorted to persecution and torture to convert the Jews?

Romans 15: 14And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 15Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 17I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 18For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Then God would not have worked through Vincent Ferrer for he did not fully preach the gospel of Christ. And as others reports of prayers of ecstasy, then I have to wonder if the rudiment of the world was introduced to them and thus incorporated in their walk without discerning them.

Thanks for sharing. I know you did not intend it to serve as a confirmation towards those links that declared the lack of reports of tongues after the early church days, but it did for me. It is apparent when they were known in those days of pre pentecostal history, it was not regarded as tongues used in the early church days... thus the believers at that time did their homework as well in discerning them. Too bad we can't go back in time to prove it, but as the Lord led me to see this, tongues are not being used rightly today either.

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 03:41 AM
Hi amazzin!!


This is not a KJV only forum. People are free to use whatever version they please.

Ah... but that leads to my "advising" that you use the King James Version. I am not commanding you all to do so. Since the Received text or the Textus Receptus is what KJV is based on as opposed to other versions based on the Alexandrian files where they found transcribers have taken license and liberty to God's Words with gnostics writings found there also. AND I have found that small word changes has changed the meaning of God's Words in the other versions whereas in those descrepancies in the KJV the scriptures testify of Jesus... thus I go with KJV on the actual meaning to discern apostasy in the times we live in.. because scriptures are to testify of Jesus: John 5:39-47

......hence my strong advise. That is the same as; take it or leave it. ;)

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 03:45 AM
Hi jeffreys!!


I'm a little confused here. Could you clarify please? Thank you! ;)

Forgot your first reply already? Okay! ;)


The simple answer to the question, posed by your thread title is this: NO

Glossolalia was around for centuries before Christianity was.

Hence my humor... pathetic attempt as it was... ;)


Awwww... you peeked! :)

Tell me, you ruin alot of movies by telling people the ending?!! :)

I bet you come by, see somebody reading a mystery novel and then blurt out,"The butler did it." :)
Well thanks anyway for the reply, jeffreys, but just in case somebody did not know about this, may they also receive an awareness as well as edification in regards to the faith in Jesus Christ so that they may rest in Him.

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 03:48 AM
Hi amazzin,


Hmmm,....do I know you by another username?

In here? No. I don't see how. This is my first time in here.

cwb
Nov 8th 2007, 03:54 AM
If you are speaking about the manifestation of Holy Spirit that the apostle Paul spoke about, then speaking in tongues is only for Christians born again of Holy Spirit. You have to have the Spirit of God to manifest it and somebody does not recieve the Holy Spirit until they confess Jesus Christ as Lord and believe that God has raised Him from the dead.

jeffreys
Nov 8th 2007, 03:55 AM
Hi jeffreys!!

Forgot your first reply already? Okay! ;)

Hence my humor... pathetic attempt as it was... ;)

Well thanks anyway for the reply, jeffreys, but just in case somebody did not know about this, may they also receive an awareness as well as edification in regards to the faith in Jesus Christ so that they may rest in Him.

So you're saying I gave the correct answer too quickly?

poorinspirit
Nov 8th 2007, 04:05 AM
Hi jeffreys,


So you're saying I gave the correct answer too quickly?

Yes.. the simple revelation which would void the necessity of learning how it reached that conclusion! Hah!

Still, I hope the Lord will lead whomever to those links so they would have all the information they need to discern what is happening to them is of God or something else because they may have picked up a rudiment of the world in acquiring it.

Anyway... God be willing... I shall head to bed.

jeffreys
Nov 8th 2007, 05:16 AM
Hi jeffreys,
Yes.. the simple revelation which would void the necessity of learning how it reached that conclusion! Hah!

Still, I hope the Lord will lead whomever to those links so they would have all the information they need to discern what is happening to them is of God or something else because they may have picked up a rudiment of the world in acquiring it.

Anyway... God be willing... I shall head to bed.

Well then, I'm glad I could ruin your thread! ;)

VerticalReality
Nov 8th 2007, 05:40 AM
It's very simple. Not only because I have seen it, no other person in the medical profession that I know (which includes MANY doctors and nurses) have never seen it.

I wasn't aware that God was required to check with those in the medical profession before He performs a miracle . . .


Just as the Bible is available to everyone, so would be God's miracles. He didn't hide them. He did them in public for ALL to view. Believers and nonbelievers alike.

They are still available, He isn't hiding them, and He still does them in public.


Testimonies are not documented fact.

Yet that doesn't mean they aren't true and factual. Testimonies do not have to meet your qualifications. Again, this thing is not about pacifying the unbelief of others.


Show me ONE documented case where someone was confirmed PHYSICALLY dead and was resurrected. I don't want testimonies. I want you to show me documentation.

Why? What documentation could I provide for you that would pacify your unbelief? Regardless, what resources do I have at my disposal right now to satisfy such a request? Do I have medical records at my finger tips? Do you not see how silly such a request is? It would almost be comical if it weren't so sad how caught up in unbelief people are.


Actually you have it backwards. I read the Bible and believe what it says. My experiences CONFIRM what I have read.

And where does it say that all that stuff has stopped? If you can't provide me with those Scriptures, your experience is indeed forming your belief.



Nice escape answer. Once again you offer no documentation, no proof, not even a testimony.

Again, what documentation could I really provide for you? Since when is the Holy Spirit required to hold off on miracles so others can prepare with documentation?


Once again, my experiences are CONFIRM what I believe. Not the other way around.

I agree. Since your experience is that you aren't seeing miracles then that must mean that they aren't available or something right?


Because that is what God did. He did public displays not only to convince believers but to reinforce the faith of the believers.

Could you point out the Scripture that says He performed miracles to pacify unbelief?


Who said it was the apostles will?

So then you admit that it doesn't have to have anything to do with the apostles? If the gifts are as the Spirit wills, well then I guess the Spirit can give them anytime and however the Spirit wants to.


God said he would give them powers and he did. Do you really believe that ALL believers had the same powers as the apostles?

Do we not have the same Spirit as the apostles? You act as if the apostles are something special that we are not. Peter made it clear to those in the temple after the beggar was healed that he was just a man. There was nothing special about him other than he was a disciple and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and He had the power to set those folks free from captivity.



Really?
Acts 8:17-19: 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19 and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
Yes, really. That passage of Scripture doesn't say that the gifts came from the apostles. It just says they received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.



Acts 19:6: 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me
It does to me as well. The Spirit came upon them and the Spirit willed that they speak in tongues and prophesy.


What does that question have to do with the fact that the apostles had the power to impart the gifts? Either Acts 8:18 is telling the truth or the Bibles lies. You decide.

I decide that I just don't agree with your interpretation.


It's simple. Paul was already an apostle by the time chapter 13 was written.

Was he? Was Peter, John, Matthew and the others immediately apostles or did they start out as disciples first and fulfill the ministry with which they were called?


He was knocked of of his horse on the road to Damascus DIRECTLY by Jesus who DIRECTLY called on him to be an apostle.

Can you reference for me where in that passage it says that Paul was already walking in the office of apostle at that point? In fact, Paul wasn't even Paul at that point.


He already had the gifts.

Then why does the Spirit not perform the first recorded miracle through Paul until after he and Barnabas were set apart by the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the prophets' and teachers' hands in Acts 13?


Barnabas was first mentioned in Acts 4 and was one of the the 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecost. So he would have been baptized by an apostle, which would include the laying on of hands.

They received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost by the laying on of hands? Scripture?


The Lord's will is also to follow the scriptures.

What Scriptures would those be that you use to support this notion that the power of the Holy Spirit is not operative through His believers any longer for healings and such?


Are you serious? Are we reading the same Bible? Because that is EXACTLY what Jesus did. Try reading Matthew. Jesus did MANY miracles for the 12 disciples when they had lack of faith. I don't have enough time to list them all for you.

Are such comments really necessary? I think it's obvious that I read the bible. I am a Christian after all, and I love His Word.

But, since you obviously believe you are vastly superior to me in the knowledge of our Lord's Word, could you please show me where the Lord Jesus Christ healed someone who didn't believe?


Yes you did. You gave a very specific example and those scriptures say the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

I believe I would know if I did not mean what I said. I mean exactly what I said and I backed up exaclty why I said it. If you do not want to accept that it is your issue to deal with. I'm satisfied with the answer I gave and the reason I gave it. So, no . . . I did not.


So you are claiming that ONLY those who have faith are healed?

In what I've seen in the Scriptures the only folks who received healing from the Lord were those who believed or those who were ignorant as was the case with the man at the pool of Bethesda.


I have seen MANY people who claimed to have heal someone and then when it didn't work turn around and blame the sick person for lack of faith.

How can you claim to heal someone if they haven't been healed? It either worked or it didn't. However, we can gather from Scripture that faith must be present from both the one praying and the one receiving. For example, the disciples couldn't cast the demon out of the boy in Mark 9 because Jesus Christ said they were lacking faith. It's not always the person being prayed for.


Can you find me an example where Jesus claimed to heal someone and then blame the sick or injured when it didn't work?

Actually, Jesus never bothered to pray for those who were in unbelief that I know of as I have already referenced for you. As the Word says, He only was able to heal a few sick folks in His hometown because the rest were caught up in their own unbelief.


The whole purpose of doing the miracles was to declare the word of God, proclaim it as truth and to confirm it.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Of course those healings and miracles did confirm who He was, which they still do, but the Word also says that many of His healings and miracles were done simply out of compassion. Surely you wouldn't claim that the Lord has removed that compassion from us. I will just assume you would not.


That has all been accomplished with the completion of the New Testament.

Where's your Scripture to back this statement?


It has already been confirmed by the miracles DOCUMENTED in the written New Testament.

What do words on a page mean to those who aren't Christian?


By seeking miraculous gifts today you actually are actually showing a lack of faith in the scriptures.

If I were seeking miracles to satisfy unbelief that would be the case. However, that is not what is going on. And in actuality, Paul would disagree with your above statement as he said to desire spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14:1).


My faith is bound by what I have read and KNOW to be true. NOT by what I see.

Actually, the Word says that true faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore if your faith doesn't produce anything of the unseen in an evidentiary or substantial form, well I guess that means this faith doesn't fit the prescribed defintion given by the Word.


I agree. Faith is always important. But, again, placing requirements on the sick and injured kind of defeats the whole purpose, don't you think?

That's not an argument to take up with me. You should give such questions to the Lord as He is the one who put those situations in His Word. Again, when the Lord healed I see two scenarios in Scripture. Either the recipient had faith or they were ignorant of the Lord.


Now who are picking up snakes?

Paul did in Acts 28:3. Or are you trying to interpret this in the same condescending fashion as those who mock snake handlers?


Who are drinking deadly poisons?

The passage doesn't say to go drink poison. It says that if they drink any deadly thing it will by no means hurt them. Do you know how the self-proclaimed prophet of Islam died? He was poisoned. I guess he didn't have the Spirit of God protecting him.


Who are driving out demons?

Many. However, it's unfortunate that due to unbelief there aren't nearly enough, which is why this country's psych. wards are jammed packed with folks with nothing to set them free from their demons.


Actually I have the written word of God and that's all I need. A lot of the Quran was reworded from the Old Testament. Claiming something is inspired doesn't mean that it is. Jesus doesn't just claim. He proves. There are historical documents that Mohammed existed. That does NOT prove he was a prophet. No historical documents that I know of CONFIRM him as a prophet.

The muslim will turn around and use the same arguments against you. Therefore, your theology doesn't help you one bit. You can claim all sorts of things, but if you don't have anything evidentiary to support your claims of faith, well, you are just another religion to these people.

calirighty
Nov 8th 2007, 09:31 AM
I wasn't aware that God was required to check with those in the medical profession before He performs a miracle . . .
Sorry, I don't have a lot of time to cut and paste. These posts are getting too long, but I don't want you to think I'm not enjoying the conversation so I'll answer what I can.

First of all I don't understand your point about Paul be "appointed to the office of apostle". The Greek definition for the word used for "apostle" is messenger. You made the point about the other apostles being disciples first. That is a good point. However, as I'm sure you know, "disciple" means "student". Saul/Paul was not called on by Christ to be a student. He was called to be a messenger.

Acts 9:15: But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
To me that means he was chosen to be an apostle. I wasn't aware of any of the others being "officially" appointed.

I would like to stay on point with the apostles. We can discuss the other issues another time.

I NEVER said the gifts were FROM the apostles. I said they were passed on THROUGH or BY the apostles. Of course all miracles are by the grace of God only. There are two instances of gifts being passed on through the apostles and NO instances of anyone else passing the gifts. As I stated earlier, Philip had plenty of opportunity to pass on the gifts yet he couldn't.
You mention that God gives gifts as He wills. I don't disagree. But I believe that God chose to give the gifts THROUGH the apostles. Now as far as I know from History, and correct me if I am wrong, Saul/Paul was not called until about 5 years after Pentecost. Jesus only ministered for 3 years and there were numerous miracles recorded. Yet between Pentecost and Saul's encounter with Christ, the only recorded miracles are done by the apostles until chapter 6. Why were not other disciples doing miracles? The first recording I know of of someone other than an apostle doing miracles is Stephen. Why only Stephen when they chose 7?

You ask for scriptures saying the gifts stopped. 1 Corinthian 13:8-10 says they will cease. It does NOT say when Jesus comes. It says "perfect". I studied the Greek on this for a while and the Greek word used for "perfect" was in neutral gender. ALL references to Christ (or any other person for that matter) uses words that are either "masculine" or "feminine". I'm no Greek scholar but I plan to study it more, time permitting. I believe when Paul said "knowledge would disappear" he was referring to the "partial knowledge mentioned. The perfect refers to the completion of the New Testament scriptures. After that there would be no need for miracles to proclaim or confirm God's word because that would be accomplished by the scriptures. Now I'm not saying miracles DON'T happen. What I am saying is that they are no longer done THROUGH man.

That's all I have for now, have a good day/night.

godsgirl
Nov 8th 2007, 12:02 PM
These posts are getting too long, I propose that we go point by point if that's ok-but for now, your words are in black-and mine are colored to differentiate between the two.

Paul explained the gifts the same way the initial tongues was being used. So I don't see how you can seperate them as you did.



Actually, Paul was explaining to the Corinthians the rules for the uses of tongues-they are quite different for what Paul calls "the gift of tongues" and speaking to God in tongues (prayer) The Corinthian church was using them at the wrong time-so Paul gave them a lesson in the gifts...

All Christians are to have faith (Mark 11:22; Ephesians 2:8,) but some have a special GIFT of faith (1 Corinthians 12:9.) All Christians are to be merciful (Matthew 5:7; Luke 6:36,) but some have a special ministry gift of mercy (Romans 12:8.) Likewise,the wonderful experience of praying in tongues is available to all Christians, but some have a special public ministry gift of tongues.


Personal Prayer tongue
Spoken privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2)
No interprtation necessary (1 Corinthians 14;28)
Edifies the indiviidual believer (1 Corinthians 14:4)
Can be manifested when no unbelievers are present (Acts 10:46, 19:6)
Should be desired and practiced by all Christians (Mark 16:17, 1 Corinthians 14:5, Ephesians 6:18, Jude 20)

Public Gift of Tongues
To be interpreted (1 Corinthians 14:5)
Edifies the church (when interpreted-1 Corinthians 14:4-5)
A sign to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)
Not given to all believers (1 Cor. 12:30)




A new believer in Christ in reading that statement, is going to think that to know they are baptized with the Holy Spirit initially, they will speak in tongues and that is not what tongues were given for..

Actually, that's exaclty what the Bible says-we have 3 s cases of people being baptised in the Holy Spirit in scripture---where specific evidence of that batism is given. not just Acts 2:4 (where they spoke in tongues), but also Acts 19:6, where believers were filled with the Spirit and (spoke in tongues) and Acts 10:46 where the Jewish believers stated exacly how they knew that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the gentiles--"FOR WE HEARD THEM SPEAKING IN TONGUES." They did not wait around to see if they had fruit-it was immediately that they knew-this evidence of the baptism was good enough for the disciples.



I just gave you the scriptures. How come you did not address it to explain why Paul said that specifically about women? I told you in the post you responded to that when Paul was referring to "all", that did not mean it included women since men were to be leaders in the churches. The offices of elders and deacons all had to be a husband of one wife. So, there is precedent for that as well as the verse below reposted again for you.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Corinthians 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

This is a "red herring" question that has been answered numerous times-if you would like me to go through the scriptures that show the role of women in the church we can.


Paul spoke of it in the same chapter with it as gifts.. from the very beginning.

1 Corinthians 14: 1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2For 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.

Do you not see here-that you are contradicting the Word of God when you take this rule-(no man understands him) and try to apply it to all speaking in tongues-in the very first instance of tongues-people understood. Not only that-they all spoke at once-not each in turn like Paul said the gifts should be used.

. 5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Exactly-tongues without interpretation do not edify the CHURCH. They do however edfiy the individual speaker--That's why Paul said, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all, yet in the CHURCH.....He spoke in tongues quite often, but only did it in church when they were to be interpreted-the Corinthians were using their prayer tongue in the church-Paul was explaining to them that this wasn't the purpose of the gift of tongues.

And since Romans 8:26,27 in the NIV is so way off as to the actual meaning in the King James Version, I shall repeat the question for your version only. How is it that all saints are to have peace in reading the NIV of Romans 8:26,27 when they do not know what to pray and yet they don't "pray in tongues"?

All of us CAN speak in tongues if we are baptised in the Spirit-then we can obey Pauls words We are not to pray exclusivly in tongues but both in tongues and in our native language..

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my understanding is unfruitful, so what shall I do??
I will pray with my mind and I will ALSO pray with my spirit, I will sing with my spirut and I will sing with my understanding ALSO"

That's how Paul worded it-balance is the key-and he equated praying in the spirit with tongues-so when the Bible tells us to pray in the spirit-then it's telling us to use our prayer tongue often.

I think I am backing you in a corner as in putting you on the spot.

No, not at all, I welcome your questions, a whole lot more than you welcome the answers to those questions. -Scripture must be taken as a whole though, without picking out certian portions of scripture and ignoring other scripture that, without context, seem to contradict other portions.

Tongues will cease when that which is perfect is come and we know as we are known, until that day we see through a glass darkly.

godsgirl
Nov 8th 2007, 12:49 PM
The fact that satan can counterfit what God can do means nothing-so your opening question "is speaking in tongues only in the Christian world" would better be asked as "do Christians speak in tongues today?"


Cessationists argue that the moment the last Apostle died, or when the final sentence of the last book of the Bible had been written, all miracles including speaking in tongues ceased.

Are they correct?

Let's first establish the date that miracles supposedly ceased:

The Apostle Paul died somewhere between 64 AD and 69 AD, and the last Apostle, the Apostle John, died in 110 AD.

So let's compare the cut-off date, the year of the last Apostle's death, with the timeline of events in the Early Church:

Justin Martyr (100 ad--165 AD) was only 10 years old when the Apostle John died. He was an early Christian apologist. His works are the earliest Christian apologies, of substantial size, to survive to today.

Forty years after the Apostle John's death, he writes in 150 AD:

"For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to this present time." (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 82).





And, "Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God;" Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 88.

It is simply beyond dispute that the prophetic gifts continued until 150 AD.--40 years after the last Apostle died.

Justin Martyr was no heretic. His writings are still accepted to this day by all theologians I know of, as sound teachings.





Irenaeus (c.130-202 AD) was born 20 years after the last Apostle died.

He was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyon, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. Like Justin Martyr, he was an early Christian apologist. His writings carry significant weight because he was a disciple of Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John.

Irenaeus writes of believers in his day:

"Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ] and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ," Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 32, section 4.

Additionally Irenaeus writes:

"We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, terming those persons "perfect" who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God," --Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V. Chapter 6. section 1.

The writings of Irenaeus carry significant weight, especially concerning spiritual gifts considering:

Irenaeus had learned directly from Polycarp who had sat under the instruction of the Apostle John.
John had traveled with Christ and had spoken in tongues at Pentecost.
Surely the Apostle John knew genuine prophecy and genuine speaking in tongues when he experienced them and heard them in others.
It is only reasonable to assume that John passed clear teachings on to Polycarp, who in turn, passed such teachings and understandings on to Irenaeus.
Had John given any warning that the gifts would cease upon his death, both Polycarp and Iraneaus would have known of it.

Irenaeus testifies, in writings that exist to this day, that "prophetic expressions" and believers "who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages" were so common and widespread in his life (130 - 202 AD) that "...it is not possible to name the number of gifts..."

His comments were written probably 80 to 90 years after the last Apostle died.

If these gifts ceased 90 years previously, then to what was Irenaeus referring?







Tertullian (ca. 155-230 AD) was an Early Christian leader, and apologist.

In writing against the heretic Marcion, Tertullian writes:

"Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer--only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him;... Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty..."--Tertullian Against Marcion, Book 5 Chapter 8.

Tertullian wrote this 65 to 110 years after the last Apostle died. If these gifts were not inspired by the Spirit of God, then from whom did they come?





Asterius Urbanus (ca. 232 AD) writes:

"For the Apostle [Paul] deems that the gift of prophecy should abide in all the church up to the time of the final advent."--The Extant Writings of Asterius Urbanus Chapter X.

Urbanus explicitly denies the theory of cessationism.







Novatian (d. 258AD), was a theologian, scholar, and writer.

Novatian wrote:

"This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord's Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."--Treatise Concerning the Trinity Chapter 29.

This was written as late as 140 years after the death of John the Apostle.

If Novatian was not witnessing genuine charismata, true healings, and genuine tongues, then what was he witnessing?




Hilary (c.300-367 AD), born 190 years after the last Apostle died, was bishop of Poitiers and considered an eminent Doctor of the Western Christian Church. He testified that speaking in tongues and interpreting were present in the Church in his lifetime.

Hilary wrote:

"For God hath set same in the Church, first apostles...secondly prophets...thirdly teachers...next mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases...and gifts of either speaking or interpreting divers kinds of tongues. Clearly these are [not were] the Church's agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them."--On the Trinity, Book 8 Chapter 33.

Hilary wrote this nearly two centuries after the last Apostle died.

Hilary was writing of speaking in tongues and interpreting occurring in orthodox Christian circles. He approved of them, calling tongues and interpretation and other gifts, "the Church's agents of ministry...and God has ordained them."

If the gifts ended with John's death, then this eminent Doctor of the Western Church was absolutely deceived.

What was he observing if not the genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit?






Ambrose (c.340 – 397 AD), Bishop of Milan, was one of the most eminent bishops of the 4th century. Together with Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, and Gregory I, he is counted as one of the four doctors of the west of antique church history. (Wikipedia).

Ambrose wrote:

"As also the teacher of the Gentiles [Paul] tells us, when he says: "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; then miracles, the gift of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues.

See, God set apostles, and set prophets and teachers, gave the gift of healings, which you find above to be given by the Holy Spirit; gave divers kinds of tongues....Not all, says he, have the gift of healings, nor do all, says he, speak with tongues...as the Father gives the gift of tongues, so, too, has the Son also granted it."--Of the Holy Spirit 8, 149-151.

Written nearly three centuries after John's death.

Ambrose is not considered today to be a heretic. On the contrary, he is acknowledged as one of the first Doctors of Theology of the Early Church. And he writes of the gift of tongues in the present, not the past, tense.http://brothermel.com/tonguesthroughoutchurchhistory.aspx

cwb
Nov 8th 2007, 03:06 PM
What scripture are you referring to? It doesn't say he prayed in tongues. It said he SPEAKS in tongues and prays in Spirit.

The post that I responded to answered your question. Sometimes it helps to carefully read the posts. Anyways, I will repeat the verse that shows that Paul prayed in tongues

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.



I know a lot of people who pray in spirit, including myself. And we all do it in English.

When you are praying in English, you are not praying in the Spirit. In I Cor 14:15, Paul makes it clear that praying in the spirit is in contrast to praying in the understanding.


Let me ask you this. If you don't know what you're saying then how do you know you're praying?
The word of God tells me so in I cor 14.


How do you know you're praising God?

I cor 14:17 tells me so
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.



How do you know you're praying for your needs?

I don't. If the needs of others are more pressing at the time I am praying in tongues, I am sure that the spirit of God will address those needs when I pray in tongues.


Prayer is to come from the heart with the right motives. That is Biblical.

I agree.



You can't praise God or pray for your needs from the heart if you don't know what you're saying.

The spirit of God knows my need and my heart so I disagree with you on this one.


If it's God controlling your prayer, and you don't know what you're saying, then what you are really saying is that God is praising and praying to Himself through you. That makes no sense.

I praise God that He gave us such a wonderful gift that we can pray and give praise perfectly via His Spirit without our limited understanding getting in the way.

VerticalReality
Nov 8th 2007, 03:24 PM
First of all I don't understand your point about Paul be "appointed to the office of apostle". The Greek definition for the word used for "apostle" is messenger. You made the point about the other apostles being disciples first. That is a good point. However, as I'm sure you know, "disciple" means "student". Saul/Paul was not called on by Christ to be a student. He was called to be a messenger.

Actually, by using that logic you're saying that the other apostles weren't called to be students either because they eventually were sent as apostles. That doesn't make sense. Never does one immediately at the point of salvation begin walking in their complete calling from the Lord. In fact, most scholars agree that up to 14 some odd years past by from Paul's coversion to his being sent in Acts 13.

And actually, I think the better definition of an apostle is "one sent forth". And if you go by Scripture, Paul wasn't sent forth for that which he was called until Acts 13 . . .

Acts 13:1-3
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

As I said, you can be called to something and still not be operating in it yet. The Word says that we were all chosen before the foundations of the earth to be born again and children of God. However, that calling did not come into effect the moment we were born into this world. God's calling didn't come into effect until later in life when we accepted the Lord Jesus Christ. The same with Paul, he wasn't sent out for that which he was called by the Holy Spirit until many years after his conversion.

Me, for example . . .

I'm called to pastor. However, I have not been placed in that position totally as of yet. It's simply the calling the Lord has on my life. I will step into that calling when the Lord says so.



Acts 9:15: But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
To me that means he was chosen to be an apostle. I wasn't aware of any of the others being "officially" appointed.


Good Scripture. It proves my point. We can be chosen many years before we are actually walking in that calling. Paul was already chosen at the point of conversion, which this Scripture bears out. However, he didn't walk in that calling immediately.


I would like to stay on point with the apostles. We can discuss the other issues another time.

Actually, we may want to start another thread. This thread is about the gift of tongues and we have pretty much wandered a great deal from the initial topic at hand.


I NEVER said the gifts were FROM the apostles. I said they were passed on THROUGH or BY the apostles.

I think Scripture bears out that others laid on hands, and this was the case even for the apostles. I believe the main reason you see the apostles doing the majority of it is because they are the ones responsible for laying the foundation of the church, and they were in authority. This seems to me to be less about the apostles and more about who God has placed in authority in a particular situation.


There are two instances of gifts being passed on through the apostles and NO instances of anyone else passing the gifts.

Well, going by your logic here Paul never had any gifts until they laid hands on him in Acts 13, and those who laid hands on him were not apostles. In addition, those at Pentecost didn't need laying on of hands to speak in tongues. They simply did so because the Spirit willed it.


As I stated earlier, Philip had plenty of opportunity to pass on the gifts yet he couldn't.

Was Philip given the authority to do so? Who was given authority? Who assigned the authority? What rule in Scripture states that the one who supplied the authority can't supply it to anyone else?


But I believe that God chose to give the gifts THROUGH the apostles.

At times, yes He did. However, God can decide at any time to give authority to whomever he chooses. There is no rule stating that God could not choose to give authority to another, as He demonstrated when He had prophets and teachers lay hands on Paul and send him out rather than apostles.


Yet between Pentecost and Saul's encounter with Christ, the only recorded miracles are done by the apostles until chapter 6. Why were not other disciples doing miracles? The first recording I know of of someone other than an apostle doing miracles is Stephen. Why only Stephen when they chose 7?

I don't know why. I'm not the author of Scripture. I'm not concerned with why. You'll have to ask the Lord why. I try to be silent where the Scriptures are silent and not go assuming all sorts of things from my own fallible logic. That's just not a good idea.


1 Corinthian 13:8-10 says they will cease.

I agree they will cease.


It does NOT say when Jesus comes.

I agree that it does not say when Jesus comes.


It says "perfect". I studied the Greek on this for a while and the Greek word used for "perfect" was in neutral gender.

That's because a soul isn't a gender and the word for "perfect" is an adjective that is describing something. It's not a noun that takes on a gender form. The term is describing that which has become perfect.


ALL references to Christ (or any other person for that matter) uses words that are either "masculine" or "feminine".

But again, the term "perfect" is describing something. It's not a noun. It's an adjective. It doesn't need a gender when it is describing something.


I believe when Paul said "knowledge would disappear" he was referring to the "partial knowledge mentioned.

We still only have partial knowledge.


The perfect refers to the completion of the New Testament scriptures.

If that were the case then Paul would have been incorrect in his statement that he would see "that which is perfect". Paul was never around for the completion of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 13:10-12
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

So, here Paul is stating that when that which is perfect has come, he will then know just as he is also known. Therefore, Paul is going to see the "that which is perfect" and it isn't going to be the New Testament. He is talking about the perfection, completion and sanctification of his very soul.

Paul uses the same terminology when he writes the Corinthians again . . .

2 Corinthians 3:17-18
Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Remember in 1 Crointhians 13:12 how Paul says we currently see in a mirror dimly? We see in this mirror dimly because we are not perfected yet. Therefore, since we are not perfected we only know in part and prophecy in part. However, when that which is perfect has come, which is our perfected soul, we will know just as we also are known. Paul saw this completion when he died and went to be with the Lord just like we will see the same thing. However, that hasn't happened yet and we still are in a progressive walk of perfection that will last our lifetime.


After that there would be no need for miracles to proclaim or confirm God's word because that would be accomplished by the scriptures. Now I'm not saying miracles DON'T happen. What I am saying is that they are no longer done THROUGH man.

I disagree. Man is not perfected yet and will still need all the help we can get from our Lord and Savior. Jesus Christ's work was not finished at the cross or the inception of the New Testament. He is currently still reigning and has authority of both heaven and earth. We still need to abide in Him if we are going to walk in the blessings He has called us to walk in.


That's all I have for now, have a good day/night.

Same to you.

ProjectPeter
Nov 8th 2007, 03:43 PM
Let me make this official.

I am not going to have another "gift of tongues" thread closed because folks can't behave themselves. Instead... we are going to start deleting post. We will not send you a copy of the post so you can clean it up after saying what you shouldn't have said. We are just going to delete it and hopefully after time is wasted because of one silly dig... folks will get the message. There have been some good comments made by all in this thread but in many of the post... it is as if folks can't help themselves and they mess it up because they have to get a dig in here and there.

Quit treating others as if they are retarded. Quit pretending that you are shocked at something that someone says when you know good and well the opposing sides view. Quit hinting that the other side of the issue (of you) is stupid and has no knowledge of the Bible. Etc. etc.

Continue now.

godsgirl
Nov 8th 2007, 07:21 PM
Jesus Christ declared that believers would "speak with new tongues." It does not say apostles. It does not say "only in the first century." It says "them that believe."

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Who is the promise of Holy Spirit and the ability to speak in tongues for?

Acts 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Speaking in tongues as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit was not just for the apostles, nor just for those who heard that day. It is for you who believe today as well. It is for "all that are afar off - as many as the Lord our God shall call." Speaking in tongues is for you.

What is the will of God?

I Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues ...

I Corinthians 14:14-15 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth...What is it then? I will pray with the spirit...

I Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.

I Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The apostle Paul wrote this section of Corinthians to correct error in use of the manifestations in public worship. When the Corinthians got together they all wanted to (because of course all can!) speak in tongues. In fact they were all doing it together at the same time. So Paul wrote to let them know what should be the order of things in public. But he also made it clear that tongues in your private worship of God was not only good. It was God's will, it was Paul's practice [more than ye all], and it was a commandment of the Lord. Does God want you to speak in tongues? ABSOLUTELY!

Many people declare that tongues were for the original apostles but that tongues ceased. This is not the witness of the Word of God. We have already seen that the Word declares that tongues are for "all that are afar off - even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Corinthians also deals with this question.


1 Corinthians 13:8-10,12
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Did tongues cease? NO. Did knowledge vanish away? If knowledge is gone then I guess we wouldn't be able to know if tongues ceased. This is a silly argument. The Word says these will cease when "that which is perfect is come" and "when we see him face to face." The return of Christ will bring spiritual perfection including a "body fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21) and we will meet him in the air and see him face to face. 1 John 3:2 says "we will be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Until that day speak in tongues much. God gave you the abiltiy so you could worship Him. USE IT!
Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

calirighty
Nov 8th 2007, 07:35 PM
Actually, by using that logic you're saying that the other apostles weren't called to be students either because they eventually were sent as apostles. That doesn't make sense. Never does one immediately at the point of salvation begin walking in their complete calling from the Lord. In fact, most scholars agree that up to 14 some odd years past by from Paul's coversion to his being sent in Acts 13.

I disagree. The original 12 were called on by Jesus to be his disciples. He spent three years teaching and instructing them. They were designated as apostles in Mark 3. They were given powers to heal and drive out demons yet the Gospel had not been completed at this point, so they were not sent out. However, Paul, in Galatians 1:11-12 states: 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
When did he receive this revelation? On the road to Damascus. At this point the Gospel was complete and there was no reason to wait. Paul began teaching in the synagogues in Chapter 11 and was sent as far away as Antioch and Tarsus so I disagree that he was not an apostle till chapter 13. He may have not been specifically sent out for the Gentiles until then but he was still sent to teach. He also was said to be "filled with the spirit" in chapter 9 when Ananias baptized him. I believe at this point Jesus gave him the same authority as he gave the apostles. He may not have done any miracles until chapter 13 but it didn't say that none were performed until chapter 13.
I'll tell you. I have been studying this topic for months and it doesn't seem to get any easier. You ask good questions and it makes me want to study the topic that much more.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 12:13 AM
Hi cwb,

The links are there to give an awareness that a person can speak in tongues as a non-Christian as in without having the Holy Spirit in them. Thus a call to discern. Thus leads to determining the rudiment of the wolrd in how they receive it and whethor or not the christian churches accidentally picked up the same rudiment without realizing it.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 01:06 AM
Most interesting article written by Bill Scudder, one who speaks in tongues. He saw hidden dangers about the people around him in receiving tongues, especially when it came to catholics receiving tongues. At this link is his story.

http://hometown.aol.com/azusa/myhomepage/faith.html

If anyone feel led to share similar stories, feel free.

Oh, and again, in case a reader does not know me, I do not speak in tongues nor do I seek it. I am content with Jesus. He is enough for me. So for anyone that feels free to share similar alarms, please do so.

always
Nov 9th 2007, 01:27 AM
Most interesting article written by Bill Scudder, one who speaks in tongues. He saw hidden dangers about the people around him in receiving tongues, especially when it came to catholics receiving tongues. At this link is his story.

http://hometown.aol.com/azusa/myhomepage/faith.html

If anyone feel led to share similar stories, feel free.

Oh, and again, in case a reader does not know me, I do not speak in tongues nor do I seek it. I am content with Jesus. He is enough for me. So for anyone that feels free to share similar alarms, please do so.


Stories like these are not uncommon, the enemy can set up in anything and anyone if there is a door open, so many times in doing things man's way ones are led astray.

I believe in Acts 2:4 that we are to ask for what we want from God, and those that recieve the baptism of the Holy Ghost or endowed with power.

Realist1981
Nov 9th 2007, 02:20 AM
that is an interesting article but not surprising

godsgirl
Nov 9th 2007, 02:24 AM
Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:11-13).


Seems pretty obvious to me that a Christian who asks Jesus to baptise them in the Holy Spirit and receives the tongues that accompany that baptism do not need to worry about "opening themselves up to the enemy". and receiving a stone or a scorpion=we have God's Word on it.

And those disciples that were with Jesus-they were told to not even begin their earthly ministry until they were endowed with this promise from the Father-they needed it, it was important enough that it was one of the last commands of Jesus-who are we to say, we don't need it?

punk
Nov 9th 2007, 02:33 AM
I've watched something of the tongues phenomenon first-hand.

The first thing I noted is that it was completely faddish, so for a while everyone was doing it, then when it got old, no one was doing it.

The second was that it had a certain cliqueishness to it, so there was an inside and an outside to the tongues clique, and one could suspect that people were doing it (whether consciously or not) to belong to the tongues "inside" crowd.

Finally I observed the return of one of the tongues people to a group after they left (and after it had definitively died out among the group) and noted that while she was there certain other people started doing it, and it stopped immediately when she left again.

The point?

The tongues phenomenon did nothing more than define a group, contributed nothing of any value whatsoever otherwise, but made a certain group feel like "special" insiders. It also seemed to exhibit some well-defined psychological (and I'm betting subconscious) characteristics.

I put my vote with tongues being complete nonsense, but divisive, and thus bad.

Realist1981
Nov 9th 2007, 02:50 AM
Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:11-13).


Seems pretty obvious to me that a Christian who asks Jesus to baptise them in the Holy Spirit and receives the tongues that accompany that baptism do not need to worry about "opening themselves up to the enemy". and receiving a stone or a scorpion=we have God's Word on it.

And those disciples that were with Jesus-they were told to not even begin their earthly ministry until they were endowed with this promise from the Father-they needed it, it was important enough that it was one of the last commands of Jesus-who are we to say, we don't need it?

The scripture you quoted had nothing to do with speaking in Tongues. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. There are other gifts as well. Elevating the gift of speaking in tongues over the other gifts of the Holy Spirit is a man made doctrine. Not everybody who gets Baptized speak in Tongues.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 02:55 AM
Hi Godsgirl!!

Thanks for sharing. I think amazzin posted the same thing in another thread, more or less.

Some puzzlement though. From your link, I find this statement.


Justin Martyr was no heretic. His writings are still accepted to this day by all theologians I know of, as sound teachings.

And yet at this other link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm


As to the Eucharist, the baptismal Mass and the Sunday Mass are described in the first "Apology" (lxv-lxvii), with a richness of detail unique for that age. Justin here explains the dogma of the Real Presence with a wonderful clearness (lxvi, 2): "In the same way that through the power of the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour took flesh and blood for our salvation, so the nourishment consecrated by the prayer formed of the words of Christ . . . is the flesh and blood of this incarnate Jesus." The "Dialogue" (cxvii; cf. xli) completes this doctrine by the idea of a Eucharistic sacrifice as a memorial of the Passion.

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book II :Have you read that book? It is online at this site:http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/02-ag-he.htm

That book is hard to read, but it seems that as Irenaeus is addressing heresey, he is teaching some of his own. Look at how he refers to the "Mother" which has to be Mary. Iranaeus has her up there as part of God. Chapter 30 in the 3rd, 4th, & 5th sections seem to have "her" in the workings in Creation. The 7th section shall be quoted below.


7. For that there are spiritual creatures in the heavens, all the Scriptures loudly proclaim; and Paul expressly testifies that there are spiritual things when he declares that he was caught up into the third heaven,.....if he were to approach the Demiurge, and thus behold the whole seven lying beneath him); but he might have been admitted, perhaps, into the intermediate place, that is, into the presence of the Mother, that he might receive instruction from her as to the things within the Pleroma. For that inner man which was in him, and spoke in him, as they say, though invisible, could have attained not only to the third heaven, but even as far as the presence of their Mother. For if they maintain that they themselves, that is, their [inner] man, at once ascends above the Demiurge, and departs to the Mother, much more must this have occurred to the [inner] man of the apostle;

Irenaeus
reasoning is: The churches being too numerous, it may be sufficient to examine into the doctrine of one, viz., of the Roman Church, or, at least, of some of the oldest churches (III, ii, iii). He says: "Even if there is a controversy about a little question, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches in which the Apostles dwelt, and take from them the safe and trustworthy doctrine?" (III, iv, 1)


Tertullian, with his characteristic energy, takes up the same argument in his famous work "On Prescription Against Heretics". His general process of reasoning runs thus: Christ chose twelve Apostles to whom he communicated His doctrine. The Apostles preached this doctrine to the churches they founded, and thence the same doctrine came to the more recent churches. Neither did the Apostles corrupt Christ's doctrine, nor have the Apostolic Churches corrupted the preaching of the Apostles. Heresy is always posterior, and, therefore, erroneous........


Having developed the historical argument founded on the preservation, as a matter of fact, of the Apostolic doctrine in the chief Apostolic Churches, we must add that, besides it, such writers as Irenaeus and others used often also a dogmatic argument founded on the necessary preservation of Christian truth in the whole Church and in the Roman Church in particular. The two arguments are to be carefully distinguished.

That was at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm

The following quote is from this link below from his book:Tertullian Against Marcion, Book 5

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm


In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it. But that we may now leave the subject of spiritual gifts,

Due to the length of the list of names you have given, I shall post this and proceed onto the other names for investigation... God be willing. I may get knocked off line at any moment.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 03:16 AM
Hi Godsgirl!!

Still here. Going on to the other names, God be willing.


Urbanus explicitly denies the theory of cessationism.

Did you see what he was using it for?


"For if, after Quadratus and the woman Ammia in Philadelphia, as they say, the women who attached themselves to Montanus succeeded to the gift of prophecy, let them show us which of them thus succeeded Montanus and his women. For the apostle deems that the gift of prophecy should abide in all the Church up to the time of the final advent. But they will not be able to show the gift to be in their possession even at the present time, which is the fourteenth year only from the death of Maximilla." (THE EXTANT WRITINGS OF ASTERIUS URBANUS. Book I. Chapter X.)

Notice 2 things from this passage from Asterius Urbanus. First, Asterius is using the presence of the gifts among the orthodox and the absence of the gifts among the heretics as proof for which of the two had the true testimony of God (this is similar to Justin Martyr's argument which we looked at earlier). Those with the sound doctrine of God had the gifts.

This was found at this link which is addressing the charge of
No. 4 - If Paul taught that the gifts would continue until Jesus' return then Paul was a False Prophet.

http://www.biblestudying.net/proof5.html

God be willing....I'll move on to another name in another post, because I think that link might be enough for a thread by itself.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 03:55 AM
Hi Godsgirl!!

Just continuing the investigation of these names you and amazzin has supplied to the proof of tongues being used today still. The next name is:

Novatian http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

The following quote is from the latter end of Chapter 29.


Established in this Spirit, "none ever calls Jesus anathema; "26 no one has ever denied Christ to be the Son of God, or has rejected God the Creator; no one utters any words of his own contrary to the Scriptures; no one ordains other and sacrilegious decrees; no one draws up different laws.26 Whosoever shall blaspheme against Him, "has not forgiveness, not only in this world, but also not in the world to come."26 This is He who in the apostles gives testimony to Christ; in the martyrs shows forth the constant faithfulness of their religion; in virgins restrains the admirable continency of their sealed chastity; in others, guards the laws of the Lord's doctrine incorrupt and uncontaminated; destroys heretics, corrects the perverse, condemns infidels, makes known pretenders; moreover, rebukes the wicked, keeps the Church uncorrupt and inviolate, in the sanctity of a perpetual virginity and truth.

It looks like he is continuing the argument that because of the gifts, it proves the Church to be kept uncorrupted....the gist of it. He is, of course, referring to the Roman Catholic Church since he was a Roman priest.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm


Some days later Novatian set himself up as a rival pope.


To ensure the loyalty of his supporters Novatian forced them, when receiving Holy Communion, to swear by the Blood and the Body of Christ that they would not go over to Cornelius.

I find this disturbing that for all the gifts being given by the Holy Spirit, supposedly, none corrected the false doctrines of catholicism... the "Holy Communion" and the "Mass" and so forth. Don't you?

I have to go off line now.

awestruckchild
Nov 9th 2007, 04:27 AM
I read the article and I am living proof that you can receive the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues.
But I can see where a person very new to christianity might be led astray.
Like, if I had come across someone telling me I had to speak in tongues before I met the Holy Spirit, I may have believed them.
Not to say that there is no speaking in tongues from God today, there very well may be for all I know, just that He has never hit me with that gift but I definitely received the Spirit.:pp

9Marksfan
Nov 9th 2007, 09:25 AM
There's also a very strong argument that it's completely unbiblical to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit because (a) it's never commanded or encouraged in the NT and, given the importance placed upon the experience by Pentecostals/charismatics, one would think that some such command/exhortation would exist if it were so important; and (b) Scripture states that every believer receives this experience at conversion:-

"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." 1 Cor 12:13 NIV

So, unless we're baptised by the Spirit (the word "by" can also mean "with" or "in"), we're not in Christ's body = we're not Christians.

Pilgrimtozion
Nov 9th 2007, 10:54 AM
There's also a very strong argument that it's completely unbiblical to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit because (a) it's never commanded or encouraged in the NT and, given the importance placed upon the experience by Pentecostals/charismatics, one would think that some such command/exhortation would exist if it were so important; and (b) Scripture states that every believer receives this experience at conversion:-

"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." 1 Cor 12:13 NIV

So, unless we're baptised by the Spirit (the word "by" can also mean "with" or "in"), we're not in Christ's body = we're not Christians.
Hey mate,

Your first argument is an argument from silence, which does not amount to much in a theological sense. Many things can be argued in such a fashion if so desired.

The second verse says nothing about the actual existence of the baptism of the Spirit seperate from conversion. I understand you interpret the verse that way, but is it not possible that the baptism in the Spirit was such a wide-spread phenomenon that Paul assumed all the Corinthian believers were baptized in the Spirit? This is conform other NT Scriptures and the Book of Acts, where baptism in the Spirit is closely linked with but not interchangeable nor simultaenous with repentance.

ServantofTruth
Nov 9th 2007, 12:35 PM
I think i have posted this on this site before. My ex sister in law, a vivars daughter use to speak in toungues. She also had sex and a baby outside of marriage at the same time. Then within a couple of years my brother and her denied the faith. This was a definite warning to me. Would God give such a gift to someone who was disobeying him so much and obviously was only a believer on the outside - when he knows the inside thoroughly?
Generally i don't believe in modern day tounges, though obviously i accept fully the bible tongues. But i don't have a closed mind. But i don't believe God/ the Spirit does anything for nothing, no reason. What is the point of all these people speaking in tongues and someone else translating? If a prophesy helped perhaps, if it agreed with scripture. But 90% i'm convinced its not happening today.

9Marksfan
Nov 9th 2007, 01:18 PM
Hey mate,

Your first argument is an argument from silence, which does not amount to much in a theological sense. Many things can be argued in such a fashion if so desired.

I respectfully disagree. It's a foundational doctrine in some circles and what I'm saying is that it seems strange if it is true, because there is no mention of it being commanded - so it is the Pentecostals/charismatics who are arguing from silence, not me, my friend!


The second verse says nothing about the actual existence of the baptism of the Spirit seperate from conversion.

Maybe that's because it's simultaneous! :lol:


I understand you interpret the verse that way, but is it not possible that the baptism in the Spirit was such a wide-spread phenomenon that Paul assumed all the Corinthian believers were baptized in the Spirit?

No - he is clearly speaking doctrinally about universal Christian experience. To follow your argument to its logical conclusion, if this were simply an assumption of the Corinthians' experience and not teaching on universal-without-exception Christian experience, then it would be possible to be saved without having drunk of one Spirit and being a member of Christ's body - other Scriptures show this is impossible.


This is conform other NT Scriptures

Such as?


and the Book of Acts, where baptism in the Spirit is closely linked with but not interchangeable nor simultaenous with repentance.

Agreed - but then the book of Acts is the book of beginnings and lots of "one off" events like the Pentecosts - the Jewish one and the "other" Pentecosts (for the Gentiles and John's followers). There was also undeniably an exceptional display of signs and wonders which - historically - has never been repeated in a similar way - which helped to authenticate the ministry of the apostles, as Jesus prophesied would happen in Mark 16. Tongues speaking by converts was one of those signs.

Interestingly, time and time again Luke speaks of being "filled" with the Spirit - NOT baptised. I believe they are quite distinct theological terms and experiences, but I suspect that's a debate for another thread!

Btw, it may surprise you to know that I'm not a cessationist but, like Servantoftruth, I believe that the majority of charismatic gifts around these days are counterfeit for one reason or another. Why? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and of holiness - usually one or both qualities will be lacking in the lives of the churches/individuals who claim to have the gift of tongues and, if that's the case, why would the Spirit minister to someone/a church to authenticate what isn't there - and indeed what is being denied? God is not a God of confusion.

Now, if a believer/church is sound in doctrine and holy in life, that's another matter! I would say in those situations - why not?!?! ;)

watchinginawe
Nov 9th 2007, 03:10 PM
There's also a very strong argument that it's completely unbiblical to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit because (a) it's never commanded or encouraged in the NT and, given the importance placed upon the experience by Pentecostals/charismatics, one would think that some such command/exhortation would exist if it were so important; and (b) Scripture states that every believer receives this experience at conversion:-Assuming (b), then you are saying that we are never encouraged to believe? :confused You are offering a contradictory arguement. I don't get it.

Regarding (a), let's look at this. I have bolded certain words for emphasis. Do you not believe that this is ecouragement?:

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
...
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


And another. In the Samarian revival that Philip was conducting, we see the following concern which led to action:

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
...
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
...
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

In both of the above examples, we had baptized believers, but the Apostles "encouraged" yet more.

Your point (a) is contradicted by the above biblical recorded events.

I could point to even more encouragements but I know how these dicussions go. First the conclusion, then the arguements.

God Bless!

ProjectPeter
Nov 9th 2007, 03:22 PM
I disagree. The original 12 were called on by Jesus to be his disciples. He spent three years teaching and instructing them. They were designated as apostles in Mark 3. They were given powers to heal and drive out demons yet the Gospel had not been completed at this point, so they were not sent out. However, Paul, in Galatians 1:11-12 states: 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
When did he receive this revelation? On the road to Damascus. At this point the Gospel was complete and there was no reason to wait. Paul began teaching in the synagogues in Chapter 11 and was sent as far away as Antioch and Tarsus so I disagree that he was not an apostle till chapter 13. He may have not been specifically sent out for the Gentiles until then but he was still sent to teach. He also was said to be "filled with the spirit" in chapter 9 when Ananias baptized him. I believe at this point Jesus gave him the same authority as he gave the apostles. He may not have done any miracles until chapter 13 but it didn't say that none were performed until chapter 13.
I'll tell you. I have been studying this topic for months and it doesn't seem to get any easier. You ask good questions and it makes me want to study the topic that much more.


But then he wasn't sent to what God called him for until some time after Damascus Road. It is someone "sent". Paul wasn't sent until the folks laid hands on them and sent them. Just that he proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ... that is what all disciples do or should do. Once Paul was sent... that is when he began his journey as an Apostle.

divaD
Nov 9th 2007, 03:36 PM
The way I see it, the Holy Ghost can only be given in one manner, that is the laying on of hands. So for the Holy Ghost to be still given today, as was in Acts 19:6, it would mean there can't be any breaks in the link.

Example: Paul lays hands on this one, that one lays hands on that one etc etc. But if through the ages, and somehow the link is broken, how could anyone then receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6?

Does anyone see where I'm coming from? If the cycle is somehow broken over time, then I would like to know how it could start up again? Since it requires the laying on of hands by ONLY of those that had received the Holy Ghost.

But if the cycle were never broken..then yes..one can still receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6.

The question is..has the cycle ever been broken?

watchinginawe
Nov 9th 2007, 03:47 PM
The way I see it, the Holy Ghost can only be given in one manner, that is the laying on of hands. So for the Holy Ghost to be still given today, as was in Acts 19:6, it would mean there can't be any breaks in the link.

Example: Paul lays hands on this one, that one lays hands on that one etc etc. But if through the ages, and somehow the link is broken, how could anyone then receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6?

Does anyone see where I'm coming from? If the cycle is somehow broken over time, then I would like to know how it could start up again? Since it requires the laying on of hands by ONLY of those that had received the Holy Ghost.

But if the cycle were never broken..then yes..one can still receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6.

The question is..has the cycle ever been broken?I see where you are coming from. But remember at Cornelius' house the Holy Ghost fell suddenly, and without the laying on of hands, as on the Day of Pentecost. The catalyst was the hearing of the Gospel.

I would certainly agree that it wouldn't be much help to have hands laid on by someone who doesn't believe. It might happen as a witness to the unbelievers though.

Regarding your generation to generation, believer to believer link, one might liken it to passing fire. So I am sensitive to your comments. Before there was published scripture and the New Testament writings, the Ephesian disciples had "not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost". So yes, testimony is important. But now we have scripture and the testimony of those events at Ephesus are as relevant today as they were then. The Holy Ghost can bypass all generations between IMO.

God Bless!

divaD
Nov 9th 2007, 04:06 PM
I see where you are coming from. But remember at Cornelius' house the Holy Ghost fell suddenly, and without the laying on of hands, as on the Day of Pentecost. The catalyst was the hearing of the Gospel.


God Bless!




Actually, I was prepared for that one. The thing is, the day of Penecost only happened one time. And yes during that time they received the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands, but afterwards, the scriptures seem to suggest that the Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of hands, originating from those that had received the Holy Ghost on the day of Penecost.

watchinginawe
Nov 9th 2007, 04:08 PM
Most interesting article written by Bill Scudder, one who speaks in tongues. He saw hidden dangers about the people around him in receiving tongues, especially when it came to catholics receiving tongues. At this link is his story.

http://hometown.aol.com/azusa/myhomepage/faith.html

If anyone feel led to share similar stories, feel free.

Oh, and again, in case a reader does not know me, I do not speak in tongues nor do I seek it. I am content with Jesus. He is enough for me. So for anyone that feels free to share similar alarms, please do so.I read some of it but I didn't finish it. I get the gist.

Try reading the testimony with the following light. Replace seeking tongues, tongues, etc. with praying to God, or praising God. For example, with my suggested replacements:
It wasn't long until many of these Catholics were seeking and praising God. At the time I just took it for granted that they were already saved and were seeking to praise God in the Holy Spirit Priests, nuns and others were beginning to praise God. I was guilty of believing that praising God was an indication that we shared the same Holy Spirit experience, and the same Jesus. This was due to my ignorance of the 'Gospel according to Rome,' for which I have no excuse.

I was invited to teach a course one night a week for six weeks in a Roman Catholic Parish, St. Monica In East Peoria, Illinois. Priests, nuns and others were present. I taught on the gift of Salvation. At the time I was not prepared for what I was confronting and because all present at the meetings deemed themselves already saved because of the Roman Catholic religion. I don't believe I addressed the subject in the right way. There was a spirit of bondage given to them by Rome and they had a dependence on their infant baptism and other doctrines of Rome which nullify the Gospel.

I was invited to attend Catholic Charismatic prayer meetings at Bradley University as the only non-Catholic present.

One of the Catholic prayer groups were praising God and receiving unbiblical interpretations of a sinful nature, supposedly coming direct from Mary, 'the mother
of Jesus'. Which was further proof that the unsaved were praising God from a spirit other than God. Charismatic Catholics often become more devoted to Mary after praising God that was not from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only glorifies Christ.You see what I mean? It doesn't take tongues to be wrong. There are all sorts of practices that have a genuine couterpart. These others are counterfeit.

As another example, we know that many offer the "Sinner's Prayer" as a mechanism for one to come to Christ. Personally, I believe that a genuine heartfelt prayer is fine. However, that doesn't mean a counterfeit prayer might not be offered and be completely ineffective. What spirit do these prayers come from? Does that invalidate genuine prayers of repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Saviour?

I saw your thread about whether speaking in tongues were only in the Christian world and thought to answer. But I thought my response was to obvious. Ask yourself this:

Is water baptism only in the Christian world?

Is fasting only in the Christian world?

Is prayer to a deity only in the Christian world?

Pretty soon, one would have to take the practices of water baptism, fasting, and prayer as possible exercises of the devil. And certainly they could be. The point is that just because tongues might also be present in non-Christian rituals, that doesn't invalidate tongues for the Christian. It is just the same for water baptism, fasting and prayer.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Nov 9th 2007, 04:13 PM
Actually, I was prepared for that one. The thing is, the day of Penecost only happened one time. And yes during that time they received the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands, but afterwards, the scriptures seem to suggest that the Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of hands, originating from those that had received the Holy Ghost on the day of Penecost.Actually, there is only one more recorded event of receiving the Holy Ghost after Cornelius' house, that being Ephesus. I think your extrapolation is too difficult to make. However, I certainly do believe that the laying on of hands is a good way to receive the Holy Ghost.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Nov 9th 2007, 04:25 PM
But then he wasn't sent to what God called him for until some time after Damascus Road. It is someone "sent". Paul wasn't sent until the folks laid hands on them and sent them. Just that he proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ... that is what all disciples do or should do. Once Paul was sent... that is when he began his journey as an Apostle.I agree. Saul became Paul. Saul was a chosen vessel even before his conversion, confirmed even before his baptism, but he wasn't an Apostle then, or when he was gathering the coats of those that stoned Stephen. He was chosen, and called, but not yet sent.

God Bless!

Frances
Nov 9th 2007, 07:06 PM
I do not speak in tongues nor do I seek it. I am content with Jesus. He is enough for me. .

Don't you want more of Jesus in your life?

I do, every day, which is why - even though I have been filled with His Spirit and speak in Tongues I ask to be re-filled constantly by His Holy Spirit because, as someone has said 'I leak'.

Speaking in Tongues does not make me a better christian than you, but it does make me a better Christian than I was before I accepted every Gift the Holy Spirit offered me.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 07:26 PM
Hi paintdiva,

Thanks for sharing. It is nice knowing we have that promise in Jesus for receiving the Spirit of adoption for believing in Jesus, huh?

Ephesians 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

calirighty
Nov 9th 2007, 07:38 PM
But then he wasn't sent to what God called him for until some time after Damascus Road. It is someone "sent". Paul wasn't sent until the folks laid hands on them and sent them. Just that he proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ... that is what all disciples do or should do. Once Paul was sent... that is when he began his journey as an Apostle.
I disagree:
Mark 3: 13-19 (Jesus calls the apostles)
13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve--designating them apostles--that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Mark 6: 7-13 (Jesus sends out the apostles)
7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits. 8 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

This is again repeated in Luke chapters 6: 12-13 and 9: 1-6

In Luke chapter 8 it tells of Jesus traveling from town to town with the apostles preaching the word. It is quite obvious from these scriptures that Jesus called the twelve to be apostles and gave them powers WELL before they were actually sent out.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 08:03 PM
Hi 9Marksfan!!


There's also a very strong argument that it's completely unbiblical to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit because (a) it's never commanded or encouraged in the NT and, given the importance placed upon the experience by Pentecostals/charismatics, one would think that some such command/exhortation would exist if it were so important; and (b) Scripture states that every believer receives this experience at conversion:-

Some Pentecoste/charismatics would point to the follwoing verses as godsgirl in this thread from Luke 11:11-13, but I am adding a few verses before them.

Luke 11: 9And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 10For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 11If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

My point in adding the few verses before those verses that conatenders would make for asking for the Holy Ghost is that there is reference to a knock at the door.... that door is Jesus.

John 10: 7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

So I agree with you on this. I believe the whole context of the verses and not the ones selected to prove a "non-seeking Jesus" practise by seeking after the Holy Ghost was to come to Jesus.. to seek Jesus. It is by coming to Jesus and believing on Him, we recieve the promise. That is what I believe His words meant in Luke, because no one coming to Jesus would ever wind up not getting the Holy Spirit... as in getting something else when the promise says you shall for believing on Jesus.

Ephesians 1: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Galatians 3: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Hebrews 11: 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

John 3: 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Too many believers think they need some outward manifestations or to feel the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but the only way we shall know Him is by coming to Jesus as their Saviour and thus receiving the promise as we know Him by dwelling in us.

John 14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.....15If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Anyway, I agree that there is no seeking the Holy Spirit or asking for the Holy Spirit when the whole verses is just promising what would happen if seekers knock at the door.... Jesus.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 08:09 PM
Hi ServantofTruth!!

Thanks for sharing. I, myself, just believe that the use of tongues are moot when the King James Bible is here. I, too, have not seen anything documented from the speaking of tongues with an interpretor as if continuing the New Testament that muster anything the churches needed to learn or to know today that could not be found in the scriptures. I mean... it is through the word we are edified, so what else could there be with all those tongues out there? Thus, something is not right about this, but I am content with Jesus.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 08:13 PM
Hi punk!!

I agree as I have seen this too. Thanks for sharing your observations.

I do wonder what those that do speak in tongues would do if they saw what you saw. Nothing? Or would they correct them? Or just plainly tell them to be silent? Hmmm...

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 09:00 PM
Hi watchinginawe,


In both of the above examples, we had baptized believers, but the Apostles "encouraged" yet more.

Actually, if we look at Acts 19, we will find important details that suggest that the "disciples" they found there were of John the Baptist. They did not know that Jesus was the Christ! Paul had to tell them the Good News! Then they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.


Acts 19: 1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.

The problem with Acts 8 is one has to see the reason why God may not baptized those new believers in Samaria right away... and it had everything to do with Simon, the scorceror. To get the mentality or their way of thinking in view, we have to know what was happening there with Simon before Philip came to preach the Gospel. Keep in mind of their experiences as well as their association with Simon as a danger ground of committing the unpardonable sin by these new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8: 5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8And there was great joy in that city.

Notice in the next verse the word, "but" as if trying to explain something important which would be to address the contrariness of the faith as in not receiving the Holy Spirit right away when they believed.

9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

So here we are with the reason for the "but" even though they had received the Good News with joy. This set the stage as to the menatlity these new believers had before hand in regards to how they saw Simon. Would they confuse the baptizing of the Holy Ghost with the works of Simon since he was among them? And what about Simon? How was he taking all of this in? If it is the will of the Father for Jesus not to lose one, then the Good Shepherd is making sure Simon does not get condemned after he would be saved.

12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Already Simon is bewildered and lacking knowledge, and is trying to figure this out from his own experience above as he "wondered".

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Do note, prayed for them as in not looking for the Holy Ghost to fall on them. but made a request unto God. The following verses shows the mentality of Simon and why the new believers did not receive the Holy Spirit right away.

17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

So Simon wasn't ready to receive the Holy Ghost at all, but the Lord knew Simon was seeking Him, and now after properly being rebuked of the way he used to do scorceries, he repented in coming to Jesus so he could receive the promise.

24Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. 25And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

This is why the Book of Acts should never be used to create doctrines or practises as it is more of a general history of the early churches. What is written to the early churches and Jesus' own words should be used to established doctrines in the faith because too many believers are discerning their supernatural experiences inbetween the lines in Acts in trying to associate themselves with those partcular events to suggest that more is needed when they should be discerning the supernatural experiences by what is plainly written to the church in matters of faith.

Could there be more to the Simon story then what is perceived? Probably, but since they went to the trouble of explaining Simon and the history of the people before Philip came, it has everything to do with why they did not receive the Holy Spirit right away upon believing on Jesus. If one considered what would happened if Simon got the Holy Spirit right away and the new believers did too, would they have confused the experience with Simon? Would that explain the necessity of laying on of hands in this situation where it was not the means in others so the experience would not be associated falsely with Simon by the new believers that knew Simon? I know not, but what is plainly written to the early churches and the words of Jesus are the ones to base practises and doctrines of faith on... especially if they go contrary to those errant doctrines derived from events in Acts.

always
Nov 9th 2007, 09:20 PM
There's also a very strong argument that it's completely unbiblical to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit because (a) it's never commanded or encouraged in the NT and, given the importance placed upon the experience by Pentecostals/charismatics, one would think that some such command/exhortation would exist if it were so important; and (b) Scripture states that every believer receives this experience at conversion:-

I don't believe that for this logical reason, there are many that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, who know nothing of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, they are saved, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, but the power that they need that is given through the baptism Acts 2:4 has not been asked for

An individual can be given a gift, but until he unwraps it or recieves it he knows nothing of it.

godsgirl
Nov 9th 2007, 09:23 PM
Certianly the book of Acts isn't outdated-it still is the Word of God and is profitable for doctrine, correction and reproof.

The baptism in the Spirit was promised to all of us-just because we won't all accept does not negate the fact that it is God's will for all His children.

"

In Acts 2:39 Peter says "For the promise is for you and your children,and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."
We may be far off from the day of Pentecost but the promise is for us if God has called us to Himself.

What is "the promise"? It is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49). See also Acts 1:4.

This is the promise recorded in Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:17-21.
"And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams (Acts 2:17).

Before "the last days" the Holy Spirit was only poured out upon specially chosen servants of God, especially prophets" priests and kings. But now, the Bible teaches us, all Christians are royal priests (1 Peter 2:9). The Holy Spirit can be poured out on all mankind (Acts 2:17), so this certainly includes you. The applicable time period for the promise, the last days, is the time between Christ's ascension and second coming. The last days aren't over yet as Acts 2:19,20 have not yet been fulfilled. Therefore the promise is still fully applicable to all believers today.


In the Bible-the initial evidence that one is baptised in the Holy Spirit is the fact that they can speak in tongues as the Spirit enables them to speak. In every instance that evidence is given that one receives this bapitsm-tongues are there.

In Acts 8 the Word of God tells us that these people believed, and were baptised in water-they were saved. - yet were not baptised in the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19-the "disciples" believed and were baptised in water before they received this baptism.

It is Jesus who is our baptiser in the Spirit-and it is His children who receive it-it is a promise from His hand----the Word tells us that the world cannot receive---it is the childrens bread. Jesus is the Same Forever!

In Paul's time, some believers didn't even know there was a Holy Ghost. "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him. We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19:2). These people were saved, but it is clear they were not filled or baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Jesus said, "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16-17).

The world can receive the indwelling Spirit at the moment they are saved-yet clearly, for those who are Blood Bought Chldren of the King-there is more.-and the Bible calls this the baptism in the Holy Spirit.


It is clear from scripture that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes directly from the Hand of Jesus-even more in these last days the Holy Spirit power is needed-it did not cease in the time of the apostles. We have God's Word on it. Clearly we are in the last days, the exact time when Jesus said He would pour out His Spirit.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 09:32 PM
Hi divaD,

As you say, "suggests", but you can find verses that would be contrary to that.

Try not to follow any doctrines or practises based from Acts. Use the letters to the early churches and Jesus own words to determine matters of faith and practises tha represents that faith in Jesus.

John 3: 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So how can the laying of hands be a definitive sign to receive the Holy Spirit?

So how can we know for sure that we did? Jesus promised this in regards to His commandment in order to receive the Holy Ghost which are His invitations to come to Jesus in order to receive the promise.

John 14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.....15If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Ephesians 1: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Hebrews 11: 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Galatians 3: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

So as much as believers look for an outward sign because of events in Acts would lead them to believe that they may not have received the Holy Ghost as promised for coming to Jesus, they find themselves doing this seeking again and again and again, thus hungering for more of God, but Jesus made this invitation with a promise.

John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Thus going after the "spirit" and not after Jesus is after the rudiment of the world. Either we rest in Jesus.... or we are not resting in Him, thus not abiding in Him either as He gave His commandments with promises to discern by in these perilous times we live in that would broaden the "Way" by putting the seeking of the Holy Spirit as a daily habitual practise the way the world seeks after other spirits, thus departing from the faith.

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

As many would acquaint tongues as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, again, looking to that as a sign that one receives the Holy Ghost is not resting in Jesus' promise.

1 Corinthians 14: 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Thus we are here facing the promise of Jesus' word: do we believe Him or not?

John 20: 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 09:47 PM
Hi Frances,


Don't you want more of Jesus in your life?

His promise for us in coming to Him would negate that need.

John 6: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Colossians 2: 5For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:


I do, every day, which is why - even though I have been filled with His Spirit and speak in Tongues I ask to be re-filled constantly by His Holy Spirit because, as someone has said 'I leak'.

Jesus promised us differently.

2 Corinthians 5: 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Matthew 9: 17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

2 Corinthians 1: 21Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Ephesians 1:12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 4: 30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

I don't see how you can leak, Frances. Maybe instead of looking for the Holy Spirit, you should just rest in Jesus and His promise to you?

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 09:56 PM
Hi always,


I don't believe that for this logical reason, there are many that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, who know nothing of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, they are saved, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, but the power that they need that is given through the baptism Acts 2:4 has not been asked for

An individual can be given a gift, but until he unwraps it or recieves it he knows nothing of it.

I believe you were referring to the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts whom had to be informed that Jesus is the Christ. They missed the boat, so to speak, when Jesus came, as I am sure people come and go as John baptizes by water for repentance, serving a large multitude.

poorinspirit
Nov 9th 2007, 10:02 PM
Hi godsgirl!!


Certianly the book of Acts isn't outdated-it still is the Word of God and is profitable for doctrine, correction and reproof.

The book of Acts is not outdated, but its presentation is different than the other books of the NT after the four Gospel. It is a generalized historical account of the early church and thus if any doctrines or practises that come out of it that are contrary to what Jesus said or the letters written to the early churches for them to do in matters of faith, then one has to assume that doctrines developed from reading inbetween the lines with assumptions not plainly written is not good to hold onto when it is written elsewhere plainly as to the doctrines and practises of our faith should be.

godsgirl
Nov 9th 2007, 10:07 PM
Hi godsgirl!!



The book of Acts is not outdated, but its presentation is different than the other books of the NT after the four Gospel. It is a generalized historical account of the early church and thus if any doctrines or practises that come out of it that are contrary to what Jesus said or the letters written to the early churches for them to do in matters of faith, then one has to assume that doctrines developed from reading inbetween the lines with assumptions not plainly written is not good to hold onto when it is written elsewhere plainly as to the doctrines and practises of our faith should be.


There is nothing in the Book of Acts that is contrary to what Jesus said.

:confused:confused:confused

You are treading on thin ice, when you pick and choose what parts of scripture you will accept and what parts you won't. And Paul baptised the believers in chapter 19 in water-before they were baptised in the Holy Spirit-contrary to your belief that they were not saved-Paul wouldn't have baptised them in water had they not been Christians.

divaD
Nov 9th 2007, 11:28 PM
Hi divaD,

As you say, "suggests", but you can find verses that would be contrary to that.

Try not to follow any doctrines or practises based from Acts. Use the letters to the early churches and Jesus own words to determine matters of faith and practises tha represents that faith in Jesus.

John 3: 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So how can the laying of hands be a definitive sign to receive the Holy Spirit?






I believe you may be misunderstanding me. Don't those that speak in tongues today claim that this is a seperate experience, apart from being saved? And didn't the gifts of the Holy Ghost commence on and after the day of Pentecost?

And did not those, apart from those present on that day, did not they receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and afterwards spake with other tongues?

What I'm trying to determine is, if the above is so, then it just seems to reason that the tongues of today would have to link back to the day of Pentecost. And if the link is broken, how can these be the same tongues spoken of in Acts etc?

What you need to to understand, I'm trying to look at this from the pov of those that speak in tongues today, and not from my pov. This is the angle I'm looking from.

If it's not necessary, to receive the Holy Ghost, afterwards speaking in tongues, by the laying on of hands, then why were they doing it after the day of Pentecost? The laying on of hands that is.

godsgirl
Nov 9th 2007, 11:58 PM
It is not necessary to have hands laid on you-the apostles or otherwise-in order to be baptised in the Holy Spirit-here is a Biblical example-showing this....

Acts 10:44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Partaker of Christ
Nov 10th 2007, 12:04 AM
The gifts are not for our own edification, but for the Body. We are given these gifts to edify one another, in building one another up. It is not enough to say, "I am content with Jesus. He is enough for me" It is not about "me" being content. It is about Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body being served and satisfied. It is about His Body being built up. It is about 'love' for the brethren.

What greater gifts can we desire more to give one another, then the gifts that our loving Heavenly Father gives us to give.
If we say we love each other, then we should earnestly 'seek' these gifts.

Out of all the gifts given, only the gift of tongues would in some way be self edifying (in the spirit), but if this is done in the Church, it edifies no one, unless there is interpretation. In the Church we should refrain from speaking in tongues except they edify others.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (Love on another)
1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

We have everyone of us (who are His) been given at least one talent.
In my humble opinion, the Church today is suffering greatly, because there is but a few in the churches who are encouraged and given opportunity to excercise these God given talents.

The Church lacks strength, and direction if these talents are buried.

godsgirl
Nov 10th 2007, 12:08 AM
You are right-the gifts are for the church gathered-tongues and interpretation being among them-they are to edify the church. Tongues as prayer are for the edification of the individual believer-they are to build up our own faith. "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself"

Paul said, "I thank my God I speak in tongues more than all of you....YET in the church I would rather speak 5 words to teach others than 1000 words in a tongue"---Paul was merely explaining to the Corinthians-that although, prayer tongues are good-they're not to be used aloud in the church unless the Holy Spirit is using us to manifest the gift of tongues-and then He will bring forth the interpretation so that the church can be built up.

All Christians who are baptised in the Holy Spirit can follow Pauls --"I want you all to speak in tongues"---praying to God--"he who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God"---but not all Christians will be used in the public manifestation (gift of tongues).

poorinspirit
Nov 10th 2007, 01:07 AM
The way I see it, the Holy Ghost can only be given in one manner, that is the laying on of hands. So for the Holy Ghost to be still given today, as was in Acts 19:6, it would mean there can't be any breaks in the link.

Example: Paul lays hands on this one, that one lays hands on that one etc etc. But if through the ages, and somehow the link is broken, how could anyone then receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6?

Does anyone see where I'm coming from? If the cycle is somehow broken over time, then I would like to know how it could start up again? Since it requires the laying on of hands by ONLY of those that had received the Holy Ghost.

But if the cycle were never broken..then yes..one can still receive the Holy Ghost as in Acts 19:6.

The question is..has the cycle ever been broken?

Yes... it has been broken.


First, from historical documentation, we can determine with relative certainty the approximate date of the last apostle's death.

"According to 2d-century authorities John died at an advanced age at Ephesus (c.A.D. 100). However, many scholars believe that John the apostle and John of Ephesus were two different persons." (Bartleby.com, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. "John, Saint.")

"At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John's tomb is at Ephesus, identifies him with the beloved disciple, and adds that he 'was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.' That John died in Ephesus is also stated by Irenaeus , bishop of Lyon c. AD 180, who says John wrote his Gospel and letters at Ephesus and Revelation at Patmos." (Britannica.com, "John the Apostle, Saint.")

From the two above sources, we can see that John's death is confirmed by both Irenaeus and Polycrates to have occurred around 100 AD. John would have been around 100 years old at the time. If the gifts could come only by the laying on of the apostles' hands, then no one would have been able to receive the gifts after John's death at around 100 AD.


More at this link: http://www.biblestudying.net/proof3.html

godsgirl
Nov 10th 2007, 01:59 AM
No one laid hands on the disciples in Acts 2:4, and no one laid hands on the believers in Acts 10 either-not saying that laying on of hands isn't Biblical-but it isn't necessary in order to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the One who baptises believers in the Holy Spirit.

ProjectPeter
Nov 10th 2007, 02:00 AM
I disagree:
Mark 3: 13-19 (Jesus calls the apostles)
13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve--designating them apostles--that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Mark 6: 7-13 (Jesus sends out the apostles)
7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits. 8 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

This is again repeated in Luke chapters 6: 12-13 and 9: 1-6

In Luke chapter 8 it tells of Jesus traveling from town to town with the apostles preaching the word. It is quite obvious from these scriptures that Jesus called the twelve to be apostles and gave them powers WELL before they were actually sent out.


Again... calling them is calling them. But until they are "sent out" then they are simply disciples. Paul wasn't "sent out" until the elders laid hands on them by the Spirit of God. Paul was called on Damascus Road. No doubt of that. But being called... isn't being actually sent.

cheech
Nov 10th 2007, 03:15 AM
We have everyone of us (who are His) been given at least one talent.
In my humble opinion, the Church today is suffering greatly, because there is but a few in the churches who are encouraged and given opportunity to excercise these God given talents.

The Church lacks strength, and direction if these talents are buried.

I agree with this. The Bible is not taken as it's suppose to be...in truth. Many (leaders and people in general) pick and choose what should and shouldn't be practiced in our time (and throughout the ages). If Christ set the example and gave his approval and authority on gifts such as the topic at hand regarding tongues, who are we, mere humans, to say it is not suppose to be in practice anymore? I have always been under the impression that Christ's words were the truth.

Mark 16
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

I have always found it quite arrogant for those (in general as many leaders in the world do) to decide what should and shouldn't be in practice in regards to that which Christ has passed down and anything regarding the Bible. Then again, it all depends on if one believes the Bible to be the word of God and truth. Unfortunately, we also have the opposite side where there are those who abuse or imitate the gifts bring deception and confusion.

This is where the enemy comes in to play and where confusion arises amongst Christians. It is evident that Paul saw much of the same problems such as we have today amongst Christians in regards to the spiritual gifts and people thinking one gift is more important than the other and certain gifts making one person more of a Christian than someone else as we see in Paul's words throughout 1 Corinthians. History obviously repeats itself.

When we begin to pick and choose what we feel is and isn't valid anymore from the Bible...it is then that we open ourselves up to deception.

I also believe in false tongues as well (just for the record :D).

threebigrocks
Nov 10th 2007, 03:33 AM
God will bless those with the gifts which are necessary to glorify Him, in order to do His work through us, by the Spirit which resides in us which we receive when we are born again.

Not all gifts are forever. You may only prophecy or speak in a tongue once or a handful of times in your life. Or, you could teach for years. We do not get to choose, it's a gift, and the gift is given by the One who gives. We may desire certain gifts, and we can ask - but we will receive what the Giver decides is best. Like a birthday - it would be nice to have a bike, but if rollerskates are best, then rollerskates it is.

It is what serves the Lord that is important, and He works through us and Spirit which lives in us.

And, to be honest, I don't understand the hullabaloo that surrounds speaking in tongues. It is one of the gifts that is lesser, for prophecy is the greater gift.

watchinginawe
Nov 10th 2007, 03:35 AM
Actually, if we look at Acts 19, we will find important details that suggest that the "disciples" they found there were of John the Baptist. They did not know that Jesus was the Christ! Paul had to tell them the Good News! Then they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.This is easily refuted. But you know your Bible so of course you will have a clever rebuttal. But here goes anyway for the rest reading along.

The Bible, the good ole KJV, is divided by Chapters. The original texts were not. It makes for easy reading. So, let's expand our reading of the encounter at Ephesus. This is the text line by line. I have bolded certain pertinent details:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Inserting a comment here. We have Apollos in Ephesus. Apollos was instructed in the way of the Lord, taught diligently the things of the Lord. But he had some error in his teachings, one of which was knowing only the baptism of John. Continuing:

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

A little more commentary. Apollos' specialty wash showing who Jesus Christ was by the scriptures. So it seems that Apollos showed Aquila and Priscilla something and they corrected Apollos on baptism and probably Spiritual matters regarding the Holy Ghost. Apollos' Gospel was apparently consistent with that which might have existed before the day of Pentecost where the Holy Ghost fell and the first believers were baptized in Jesus' name.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

And here we are back to where Paul enters the scene at Ephesus finding these disciples who believed. Where did these come from?

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

And there it is. These were disciples that believed under Apollos' teaching of Jesus as the Christ, but only knowing the baptism of John. That is why this text is sequential. The account of Apollos in Chapter 18 explains why these disciples of Christ had not been baptized in the name of Jesus. But note, that before their baptism, the KJV says they were both disciples and believers.
The problem with Acts 8 is one has to see the reason why God may not baptized those new believers in Samaria right away...Yep. There has to be a problem there with understanding the Bible, else you would be wrong. Why not just take the text for what it says?
This is why the Book of Acts should never be used to create doctrines or practises as it is more of a general history of the early churches.That ought to do away with a bunch of problems. It makes me wonder why they even put it in the KJV and called it scripture. Here is what Paul says about scripture:

II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
What is written to the early churches and Jesus' own words should be used to established doctrines in the faith because too many believers are discerning their supernatural experiences inbetween the lines in Acts in trying to associate themselves with those partcular events to suggest that more is needed when they should be discerning the supernatural experiences by what is plainly written to the church in matters of faith.Here is something written to the early Church by Paul:

I Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

And again:

I Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

That seems contrary to what you are proposing poorinspirit. So to support your doctrine, we have to throw out the book of Acts and determine that what Paul was speaking above about coveting spiritual gifts (after being saved) and to not forbid speaking in tongues is not applicable to those reading the Bible today. :dunno:

Maybe a New Testament Bible should be published with only the things that are applicable to us today. I would love to see the committee for that task! :)

The fact is, scripture is clearly behind the charismatics. The only way to refute Spiritual gifts is to exclude entire books of the Bible, claim that certain scriptures don't apply to us anymore, lean on tradition or history of the Roman Church, etc. But the arguement that Spiritual gifts and the encouragement of believers to seek them is simply unbiblical. Your exercise shows this.

God Bless!

cheech
Nov 10th 2007, 03:53 AM
God will bless those with the gifts which are necessary to glorify Him, in order to do His work through us, by the Spirit which resides in us which we receive when we are born again.

Not all gifts are forever. You may only prophecy or speak in a tongue once or a handful of times in your life. Or, you could teach for years. We do not get to choose, it's a gift, and the gift is given by the One who gives. We may desire certain gifts, and we can ask - but we will receive what the Giver decides is best. Like a birthday - it would be nice to have a bike, but if rollerskates are best, then rollerskates it is.

It is what serves the Lord that is important, and He works through us and Spirit which lives in us.

And, to be honest, I don't understand the hullabaloo that surrounds speaking in tongues. It is one of the gifts that is lesser, for prophecy is the greater gift.

Amen to that and I totally agree!

Steven3
Nov 10th 2007, 07:47 AM
Hi Godsgirl :)
Jesus Christ declared that believers would "speak with new tongues." It does not say apostles. It does not say "only in the first century." It says "them that believe."

The Mark 16 passage states that the following signs would accompany those who believed:
power to cure blindness/mental illness
power to speak French, German and Spanish unlearned
power to handle rattlers without being bitten
power to drink deadly poison
power to heal sick by the laying on of hands
All of those signs (except 4) are documented in Acts. And the fact is that no one today can do any of these things.

What modern believers can do:
sometimes temporarily alieve some mental illness
X only unintelligible tongues (jumbled English phonemes)
X
X
only as God hears prayer, in James.
So, either Jesus meant the people he was speaking to (who did fulfill all 5 signs), or he meant believers after the apostles and there has not been a single documented true believer in the 19 centuries since. And none of us are today.



Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.


Acts 2:38 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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



promise = promise

gift = gift

power = power

They aren't the same thing. Christians today can have the John 20:22 Spirit, but don't have the Acts 2 powers.
God bless
Steven

PS - I would still be interested to see a link to a URL with a transcript of a tongues translation if anyone can provide one.

godsgirl
Nov 10th 2007, 12:06 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)

The Mark 16 passage states that the following signs would accompany those who believed:

power to cure blindness/mental illness
power to speak French, German and Spanish unlearned
power to handle rattlers without being bitten
power to drink deadly poison
power to heal sick by the laying on of hands
Boy do you have some reading to do--Where did Jesus say you would have "power to speak French, German and Spanish unlearned"? What version of the bible are you reading?????? In my Bible He just said, "langauges" He didn't say what languages those were.

And you still never answered the question from the other thread.

If tongues are always "French, German and Spanish" then why did Paul say, "He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to men but to God--indeed no one understands, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries"??

IF no one understands then what difference does it make to you what langauge they are?


If Jesus wants it to be "jumbled English phonemes," then so be it. For the most part tongues are for speaking to God and yes, some people have handled snakes without being bitten, drank poison without being hurt and have prayed for the sick to be healed. I just don't see those things as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit=like tongues are.






PS - I would still be interested to see a link to a URL with a transcript of a tongues translation if anyone can provide one.

In regards to your second question-why"? What is your purpose?

godsgirl
Nov 10th 2007, 12:55 PM
God will bless those with the gifts which are necessary to glorify Him, in order to do His work through us, by the Spirit which resides in us which we receive when we are born again.

Not all gifts are forever. You may only prophecy or speak in a tongue once or a handful of times in your life. Or, you could teach for years. We do not get to choose, it's a gift, and the gift is given by the One who gives. We may desire certain gifts, and we can ask - but we will receive what the Giver decides is best. Like a birthday - it would be nice to have a bike, but if rollerskates are best, then rollerskates it is.

It is what serves the Lord that is important, and He works through us and Spirit which lives in us.

And, to be honest, I don't understand the hullabaloo that surrounds speaking in tongues. It is one of the gifts that is lesser, for prophecy is the greater gift.

There are 9 gifts that the Bible calls "spiritual gifts"-they are all listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Each of those gifts are given "as the Holy Spirit wills"-even tongues-but nowhere does the Bible say they are "lesser gifts" that just isn't Biblical. Tongues + interpretation = prophecy. Lesser gifts???? No-they just need a companion gift-that's all.

The reason some think that tongues are discussed a lot is because in the Bible when one was baptised in the Holy Spirit the initial sign was that they spoke in tongues-this tongue isn't the gift of tongues as listed among the gifts of the Spirit-the gift of tongues is given for "when you come together"-and is followed by the gift of interpretation so that the church can be edified.

The tongues that accompany the Baptism in the Holy Spirit are for everyone-they are mostly used for prayer. So, just because you are baptised in the Spirit and speak in tongues as the Spirit enables you-doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit will manifest the gift of tongues through you.-You could possibly be used in the gift of interpretation, or prophecy or word of knowledge or healing-they are given, not as we will, but as the Spirit wills.

threebigrocks
Nov 10th 2007, 03:59 PM
I Corinthians 14



1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

2For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.
4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.
5Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
6But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?
7Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?
8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.
11If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.
12So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
16Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?
17For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is notedified.
18I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

always
Nov 10th 2007, 04:13 PM
I believe that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience subsequent to conversion and sanctification and that tongue-speaking is the consequence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the manifestations of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; Acts 10:46, 19:1-6).

I believe that we are not baptized with the Holy Ghost in order to be saved (Acts 19:1-6; John 3:5) but because we are saved. Annnnnd I also believe that when one receives a baptismal Holy Ghost experience, one will speak with a tongue unknown to oneself according to the sovereign will of Christ.

To be filled with the Spirit means to be Spirit controlled as expressed by Paul in Ephesians 5:18-19. Since the charismatic demonstrations were necessary to help the early church to be successful in implementing the command of Christ, I believe that a Holy Ghost experience would be for all men today.

godsgirl
Nov 10th 2007, 08:29 PM
I believe that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience subsequent to conversion and sanctification and that tongue-speaking is the consequence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the manifestations of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; Acts 10:46, 19:1-6).

I believe that we are not baptized with the Holy Ghost in order to be saved (Acts 19:1-6; John 3:5) but because we are saved. Annnnnd I also believe that when one receives a baptismal Holy Ghost experience, one will speak with a tongue unknown to oneself according to the sovereign will of Christ.

To be filled with the Spirit means to be Spirit controlled as expressed by Paul in Ephesians 5:18-19. Since the charismatic demonstrations were necessary to help the early church to be successful in implementing the command of Christ, I believe that a Holy Ghost experience would be for all men today.

Amen-and I would add-"all women" also.;)

Partaker of Christ
Nov 12th 2007, 01:20 AM
I also agree with 'Always'!

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels

Perhaps today we don't need so much to speak in Spanish, French, German etc, because the Gospel has furthered, and God has planted those who these languages are native tongue, but we can still speak with the tongues of angels.


Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.



The Anointing is only upon Christ Jesus. He is the Head and we are His Body.

Just as the oil was poured over the head of Aaron, it ran down his face and beard, and down his body.
When we are saved, we are planted into His Body (this is a literal truth). As long as we remain in His Body, we are under the Anointing. If we or our actions are out of His Body (not in subjection of His Authority) then we are not under His Anointing. The Anointing is a covering, and we need to be under that cover.
I believe that this is what is meant when Paul called for the excommunication, of the brother at Corinth. He was taken out from under the covering, and therefore delivered to Satan.

1Cor 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

One of my points is this, if we say that things have changed today, we are also saying that Christ has changed, and He never changes

In the OT the Spirit of the Lord fell upon certain ones, to empower them from on High. This is God's Anointing, this is God's Authority.

If all this ended with the Apostles, then we have no Authority to preach the Gospel with power, to set captives free, to heal the broken hearted, to set at liberty those who are bruised.

Steven3
Nov 12th 2007, 06:49 AM
Hi Godsgirl

PS - I would still be interested to see a link to a URL with a transcript of a tongues translation if anyone can provide one.In regards to your second question-why"? What is your purpose? In regards to your second question-why"? What is your purpose?The same now as when I gave the purpose when I first requested it - in order to show that not all churches which practise tongues do not ignore Paul's instruction that they must be translated.

1Co14..... let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

Also since tongues are (when interpreted) for building up. So let's be built up.
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Nov 12th 2007, 07:07 AM
Hi Partaker
I also agree with 'Always'!

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels

Perhaps today we don't need so much to speak in Spanish, French, German etc, because the Gospel has furthered, and God has planted those who these languages are native tongue,...in many languages - but not all. The SIL and UBS still have to train missionaries in many languages. And no SIL or UBS translator to date has been given the gift the 12 had at Pentecost.


but we can still speak with the tongues of angels.

Two points:

i. When charismatic Jews in Paul's day spoke in "dialects of the cherubim", "angelic tongues" their tongues were apparently decipherable, otherwise they would not have been able to record the angelic tongues for further worship in the synagogue.

ii. If angels had a language of their own (which they do not in OT or NT), it would:
- still be bound by the rules of grammar (which English-speakers' glossolalia is not). A case in point is the Star Trek movies having to invent a grammar for Klingon (based on Hungarian) to prevent audiences picking up that the language spoken on screen was not real.
- be a common angelic language that Spanish Pentecostals, French Pentecostals, etc produced. But instead Spanish tongues-speakers glossolate in Spanish, French speakers glossolate in French, English speakers glossolate in English. So in fact there is an "angelic" (glossolalic) subset of every major language, just as there are national sets of sign-language for the deaf. If glossolalia were truly a real heavenly language it would be international like Gestuno (the Esperanto of sign language) http://www.answers.com/topic/international-sign



Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because

he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives,
X and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
One of my points is this, if we say that things have changed today, we are also saying that Christ has changed, and He never changesNo, we're saying that disciples have changed. Not Christ. Christ can still do all 6 of those above. Some disciples used to be able to heal blindness and now they can't. That doesn't change Christ.


If all this ended with the Apostles, then we have no Authority to preach the Gospel with power, to set captives free, to heal the broken hearted, to set at liberty those who are bruised.What's preventing anyone from doing 5 out of 6, without being able to heal blindness? It'd be like saying "because we can't do miracles today we won't do anything"
God bless
Steven

Partaker of Christ
Nov 12th 2007, 06:28 PM
Hi Partaker...in many languages - but not all. The SIL and UBS still have to train missionaries in many languages. And no SIL or UBS translator to date has been given the gift the 12 had at Pentecost.

I don't get your point?
Did the 12 constantly speak in many languages?

And what of the many others?



Two points:

i. When charismatic Jews in Paul's day spoke in "dialects of the cherubim", "angelic tongues" their tongues were apparently decipherable, otherwise they would not have been able to record the angelic tongues for further worship in the synagogue.

ii. If angels had a language of their own (which they do not in OT or NT), it would:
- still be bound by the rules of grammar (which English-speakers' glossolalia is not). A case in point is the Star Trek movies having to invent a grammar for Klingon (based on Hungarian) to prevent audiences picking up that the language spoken on screen was not real.
- be a common angelic language that Spanish Pentecostals, French Pentecostals, etc produced. But instead Spanish tongues-speakers glossolate in Spanish, French speakers glossolate in French, English speakers glossolate in English. So in fact there is an "angelic" (glossolalic) subset of every major language, just as there are national sets of sign-language for the deaf. If glossolalia were truly a real heavenly language it would be international like Gestuno (the Esperanto of sign language) http://www.answers.com/topic/international-sign



he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives,
X and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.No, we're saying that disciples have changed. Not Christ. Christ can still do all 6 of those above. Some disciples used to be able to heal blindness and now they can't. That doesn't change Christ.

The disciples were not able to do any such thing, it was all of Christ, and still is.



What's preventing anyone from doing 5 out of 6, without being able to heal blindness? It'd be like saying "because we can't do miracles today we won't do anything"
God bless
Steven

6 out of 6!!

I was blind but now I see.

What makes you think that this meant the physical sight?

Steven3
Nov 13th 2007, 02:49 AM
Hi Partaker :)
I don't get your point?
Did the 12 constantly speak in many languages?The point is that, as Acts 2 mentions three times, that they did speak real languages, and Peter says 3 times Cornelius' gift was the same (but presumably in the other direction - since an Italian speaking Latin wouldn't be much of a miracle).


6 out of 6!!

I was blind but now I see.

What makes you think that this meant the physical sight?Well it did mean both literal and figurative when Christ was doing miracles, as shown by his message to John in prison. Yet now we live in age when God answers prayer, but no one does Acts-type real miracles.
God bless
Steven