Can anyone análise this for a friend of mine?

[Sister Alvear]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

it is about speaking in tongues....

Old Bobby boy, should of kept praying through.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Bobby is all mixed up with his Baptist theology, soteriology and eschatology. I thought he hit a home run when he brought up Babel and the confusion of languages. But then contradicts himself by saying nationalism (man separation to honor to country) was to keep man from being in a one world government. Here he loses track on staying in scripture and highlighting a teaching of his group, the Southern Baptists. Sister Alvear? Why does your "friend" want you to investigate Bob Utley's teaching on tongues?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Bobby also equates the tongue experience of Corinthians with the Oracle of Delph???? Now, in the thread entitled Witch of Endor I believe I went through the Greek concerning this. Bobby boy, is supposedly an Old Testament scholar? The issue with most OT scholars is that they spend way too much time is Hebrew Only. Forgetting that the Old Testament read and repeated by the 1st century Judean was Greek, and Aramaic. So, the Greek would of pointed out that NO, the tongues in Corinth was NOTHING like the sulfur smelling oracle of Delphi. Stomach sounds were interpreted for the priest. Not tongues.

[coksiw]

The Acts' experience was a way of God breaking some kind of barrier, i.e., racial, geographical, ethnicities, rivalities, etc..., by doing a sign that unify the groups with the original Acts 2 experience.

Luke reports:

[Act 2:38-39 NKJV] 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Then, this is what Luke reports:

[Act 2:41 NKJV] 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added [to them].

No mention of the Name, no mention of them receiving any gift of the Holy Spirit in any manifestation. Does that mean they didn't get baptized in the Name, or that they didn't get any gift? No. It means that Luke is simply telling a summary of a story, and in this case, just highlighting they were converted with a display of obedience.

Later on, Luke reports:

[Act 6:7 NKJV] 7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

No mentions to baptism, or receiving any gift of the Holy Spirit whatsoever with any kind of manifestation. Does it mean they didn't? Nope, but it is a summary of the obedience to the centerpiece in Acts narrative which is Acts 2. This is just typical characteristics of narrative.

A writer summarizes what doesn't want to repeat in details, since there is an implied reader that it is assumed to get the point. A writer also highlights and repeats what he wants to emphasis because of the implied reader.

No, the highlighting of tongues manifestations in Acts after Acts 2 was not a way of God to break barriers, but a way for Luke to provide evidences to the implied reader that God indeed did it for them as well regardless of their historical background; simply because a miracle of God is considered a testimony of God himself about something.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'd like to point out a little ecclesiastical psychology. Bob would rather ride in a car with a Charismatic, then a pickle sucking Baptist. Keep in mind that Bob Utley is indeed a Baptist. He brings this up to open a door that he is not dogmatic, but he is giving only the book, chapter, and verse for truth. Yet, even his car driving Charismatics are self righteous. Listen, everyone can be wrong, but honey child, not everyone can be right. If the Bible is THE TRUTH then somebody, or some group better find that truth. That Book, has way too many warnings of eternal death to get it wrong, die and think Jesus is going to give you a Bible study at the judgement seat. Because that's a Bible study I don't want.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I'd like to point out a little ecclesiastical psychology. Bob would rather ride in a car with a Charismatic, then a pickle sucking Baptist. Keep in mind that Bob Utley is indeed a Baptist. He brings this up to open a door that he is not dogmatic, but he is giving only the book, chapter, and verse for truth. Yet, even his car driving Charismatics are self righteous. Listen, everyone can be wrong, but honey child, not everyone can be right. If the Bible is THE TRUTH then somebody, or some group better find that truth. That Book, has way too many warnings of eternal death to get it wrong, die and think Jesus is going to give you a Bible study at the judgement seat. Because that's a Bible study I don't want.

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bobby is all mixed up with his Baptist theology, soteriology and eschatology. I thought he hit a home run when he brought up Babel and the confusion of languages. But then contradicts himself by saying nationalism (man separation to honor to country) was to keep man from being in a one world government. Here he loses track on staying in scripture and highlighting a teaching of his group, the Southern Baptists. Sister Alvear? Why does your "friend" want you to investigate Bob Utley's teaching on tongues?

A friend of mine is going to a christian marriage councilor (may be misspelled) and the person there told her to listen to that preacher...since the person has a pentecostal background she chose the one about tongues...I think there were serveral choices...why tongues has anything to do with the matter I do not know...neither did I ask any questions...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Bob then brings up 1st Corinthians 12. But his problem, as many, is that this letter is instruction to elders in the church families of Asia Minor. It is speaking that everyone has a specific part in the Body of Christ. That we all need each other to function. No matter where we are in the Body. While the apostle is first, the prophet is second, the teacher is third, it doesn't Brother Boudreaux and Brother Thibodeaux aren't as import as the first three parts of the Body. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown tongues? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown tongues? Yet, Paul is then goes on to say, if you want these things I'll show you a better way. Obviously everyone was at a different level, in a different office. The tongues Paul refers to isn't the initial evidence of tongues, but the "ministerial" usage of tongues. Because he goes right into the "ministerial" usage of interpretation of those tongues. Later to be revisited in the next two chapters. In three chapters it is still all dealing with elders "ministers" addressing the church family. Not that everyone will not be able to speak in tongues.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

A friend of mine is going to a christian marriage councilor (may be misspelled) and the person there told her to listen to that preacher...since the person has a pentecostal background she chose the one about tongues...I think there were serveral choices...why tongues has anything to do with the matter I do not know...neither did I ask any questions...

I see. Well, having listened to Bobby boy's focus in this teaching. Bob is actually talking about being unified without making divisions on "dogma." Baptists "NO TONGUES" No matter what. Pentecostals "EVERYBODY HAVE TONGUES." No matter what. Bobby ends the sermon with a traditional teary eye trembling close. That we have to have the Bible as the final say. That would be Bobby's interpretation, not his Sunday school teacher's. I could only guess, but maybe the couple are having doctrinal issues?