Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brother, there are several inconsistencies in your post. Take your time editing it before I respond.

Please be my guest. If you conclusively prove me to be wrong, then I have learned something. That’s a good thing. If my opinion stands, then perhaps I have taught you something. Either way is a win, in my opinion. First respond to the inconsistency in your own post. Then show the inconsistencies in mine. Don’t worry about my ego, the truth is more important than my feelings.

I respect your opinion. But what I really like is solid biblical evidence.

Now go ahead, swing for the fence!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Tongues are the result of the Spirit giving utterance. Tongues are preceded in Acts by the sound from heaven of a rushing mighty wind and cloven tongues like as of fire setting upon each of them. The Bible doesn’t say that these signs are necessary as evidence, neither does it say that tongues are necessary as evidence.

Do you continue to speak with other tongues?

Of course you have no scripture verifying that they are one time events. There are reports of it (cloven tongues) happening since. You obviously choose not to believe these reports.

Since there is no Scripture where the wind and cloven tongue like fire are ever mentioned again, how in the world can you with any integrity state I have no Scripture to verify that they are one time events? That is plain daffy.

And as far as century-old, unconfirmed anecdotes from some little corner of Pentecost, they have absolutely no bearing on establishing the faith and practice of Christian doctrine. Apply some critical thinking skill here. Do you honestly believe whatever report comes your way just because it arrived on your doorstep?

The bold portion is simply untrue. Using the legal precedent of Roe versus Wade, women have been exonerated of murder since 1973. How many times did it take for the legal system to recognize Roe versus Wade as a precedent? One.

You don't know your history. Roe v. Wade didn't suddenly make abortions in the USA legal. It made them a constitutional right, overturning any individual state-level bans or restrictions. Additionally, prior to Roe v. Wade no woman was arrested, tried, and then convicted or murder whether had a legal or illegal abortion.

You pretend that I just grabbed any definition, which I did not do. How lame is that? I quoted Miriam Webster in full. (Both definitions). I used them in the proper context.

You pretty much used every definition of precedent available to you from the dictionary to suit your needs at the time.

The problem with your theory is that the legal definition is no different from the secular definition. Roe versus Wade is a legal precedent. It simply means that it is a case that PRECEDED any case since 1973 concerning abortion. It doesn’t make it right, it only means it happened prior to, and of course it may be overturned. Mixing legal precedent and scripture may not be the best idea you’ve had.

See above. Here you are using the word precedent to simply means something that "PRECEDED". Merely happening before or prior to does not automatically a precedent make. Again, random definition grabs to suit your needs.

I KNOW A MAN.

Allow me to introduce you to Jesus Christ, who was filled with the Holy Ghost (no mention of tongues) according to:

Luke

4:1
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

But of course Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost because He was God manifested in the flesh. His body was the vail and was typified by the vail that separated the holiest place. So this is low-hanging fruit.

However . . .

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. No mention of tongues being evidence. Imagine him speaking in tongues in-utero.

Luke.1:15, 41, 67

[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Annnd . . .

Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, no tongues mentioned:

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Also Zecharias was filled with the Holy Ghost and prophesied, with no mention of another language.

[67] And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

So we have scriptural verification of people being filled with the Holy Ghost without mention of tongues as evidence.

You CANNOT be serious. Pre-Pentecost, pre-New Covenant, pre-the Spirit was not yet given according to John 7:39 examples are the best you've got?

We also have many people who received the Holy Ghost and spoke in other tongues and many who were added to the church without mention of whether or not they spoke in tongues.

Biblical silence on when people were added to the church without mentioning speaking with other tongues doesn't bolster your case in any way. It's simply a neutral, so why try to use it to make a case, unless you are trying to infer something that isn't there, from the silence?

The temptation is to add to the Bible and say, as many people do, that you can’t go to heaven unless you have spoken in tongues. It reminds me of the brasen serpent that the Israelites came to worship. They idolized the serpent, instead of praising God for deliverance. Some may think it blasphemous that I even say this. If so it should serve as a sign that you have elevated tongues to idolatry status.

Jesus talked about the brazen serpent, comparing Himself to it, right after he told Nicodemus he must be born from by the Spirit with an accompanying phone.

We tend to seek a sign that we can see or hear. The Bible doesn’t say that tongues is the evidence. It also doesn’t say that it isn’t.

But it does say speaking with other tongues is the evidence. This is that, right? What did Simon Peter say regarding the Holy Spirit and what the on-lookers could see and hear in Acts 2:33?

Paul in Romans 8:16 wrote that the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit. This "bears witness" remark means to testify according to evidence:

...to be a witness, to bear witness, testify, i. e. "to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something...

https://biblehub.com/greek/4828.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/3140.htm

It does say that we can speak with tongues of men and angels, but if we have not love charity we are as a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol. Tongues do not save us. We are forbidden to add to the word of God, or diminish ought from His word. Unfortunately we feel free to do so.

Part of the agape Christians are to have active in their life is the agapen of the truth.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_t...nians/2-10.htm

I received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. Prior to truly receiving the Holy Ghost, I also was coached into believing that I had received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues when it never happened. The same thing happened to my daughter and others that I know. It probably has happened more than people would believe.[/quote]

Self-refuting. You just wrote you knew you didn't receive the Holy Spirit because you had been coached into thinking you spoke with other tongues when you knew "it never happened".

I think it is a result of well intended (altar workers) seeking the sign, rather than seeking God. According to Acts 2 it is a promise of God, and it is a gift. Sometimes I believe we should just trust God to do what he promised, instead of checking the speaking in tongues box. Of course that would require having faith in God, and who has time for that?

Who cares what well-intentioned altar workers do or don't do? Heteropraxy does not negate orthodoxy. As for the rest, you are only preaching to yourself to cover for your failings. Leave the "we" language out of this. If you are not actively doing anything to rectify these alleged problems you claim are happening in Pentecost and are allowing people to continue to fall victim to them, up to and including your own daughter, you are just as guilty.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Please be my guest. If you conclusively prove me to be wrong, then I have learned something. That’s a good thing. If my opinion stands, then perhaps I have taught you something. Either way is a win, in my opinion. First respond to the inconsistency in your own post. Then show the inconsistencies in mine. Don’t worry about my ego, the truth is more important than my feelings.

I respect your opinion. But what I really like is solid biblical evidence.

Now go ahead, swing for the fence!

See 162. As far as your inconsistencies, Chris/Aquila did return to this forum under the name Antipas and EB was one of, if not the first, to catch on even though Antipas at first tried very hard to cover his tracks. Only when EB called him out on it publicly and others realized the truth and followed suit, did Christ/Aquila/Antipas stop trying to hide it, even though he never admitted to it. Yet, as an admin I had the proof, and so, banned him again.

As far as EB's and Aquila's prior, historical interactions are concerned, while you are free to perceive them how you will, the truth is your perceptions are severely colored by your own bias. Aquila, as several other members here can attest, was a mess who caused more problems than probably anyone in recent memory, apart from Sean.

So, you've learned something, right?. You are and were wrong. Your discernment, not EB's, is off, and so, you might seriously consider slowing down before you spout off on the forum about things you don't know anything about. Truth over feelings and all that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Rev. Ike,

It has occurred to me that you may not know what EB means by calling you Chris. It is not intended as a compliment. Chris is a person that went by the screen name of Aquila who EB loved to denigrate, and insult. He has accused several of being Chris without any tangible evidence, since Aquila was banned about a year ago.

He obviously misses the good ol’ days when he was able to bash Chris on a daily basis. Chris had some very liberal views. He doesn’t seem to be much like you at all. Maybe one day he will return to the forum and give EB something to look forward to every day. EB’s gift of discernment is obviously a bit rusty, but his ability to call names and falsely accuse would make any third grade class bully proud.

I thought I would give a little background, just in case you are scratching your head.

Once again, welcome to the forum.

You are a sore loser.

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Do you continue to speak with other tongues?



Since there is no Scripture where the wind and cloven tongue like fire are ever mentioned again, how in the world can you with any integrity state I have no Scripture to verify that they are one time events? That is plain daffy.

And as far as century-old, unconfirmed anecdotes from some little corner of Pentecost, they have absolutely no bearing on establishing the faith and practice of Christian doctrine. Apply some critical thinking skill here. Do you honestly believe whatever report comes your way just because it arrived on your doorstep?



You don't know your history. Roe v. Wade didn't suddenly make abortions in the USA legal. It made them a constitutional right, overturning any individual state-level bans or restrictions. Additionally, prior to Roe v. Wade no woman was arrested, tried, and then convicted or murder whether had a legal or illegal abortion.



You pretty much used every definition of precedent available to you from the dictionary to suit your needs at the time.



See above. Here you are using the word precedent to simply means something that "PRECEDED". Merely happening before or prior to does not automatically a precedent make. Again, random definition grabs to suit your needs.



You CANNOT be serious. Pre-Pentecost, pre-New Covenant, pre-the Spirit was not yet given according to John 7:39 examples are the best you've got?



Biblical silence on when people were added to the church without mentioning speaking with other tongues doesn't bolster your case in any way. It's simply a neutral, so why try to use it to make a case, unless you are trying to infer something that isn't there, from the silence?



Jesus talked about the brazen serpent, comparing Himself to it, right after he told Nicodemus he must be born from by the Spirit with an accompanying phone.




But it does say speaking with other tongues is the evidence. This is that, right? What did Simon Peter say regarding the Holy Spirit and what the on-lookers could see and hear in Acts 2:33?

Paul in Romans 8:16 wrote that the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit. This "bears witness" remark means to testify according to evidence:





Part of the agape Christians are to have active in their life is the agapen of the truth.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_t...nians/2-10.htm

I received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. Prior to truly receiving the Holy Ghost, I also was coached into believing that I had received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues when it never happened. The same thing happened to my daughter and others that I know. It probably has happened more than people would believe.

Self-refuting. You just wrote you knew you didn't receive the Holy Spirit because you had been coached into thinking you spoke with other tongues when you knew "it never happened".



Who cares what well-intentioned altar workers do or don't do? Heteropraxy does not negate orthodoxy. As for the rest, you are only preaching to yourself to cover for your failings. Leave the "we" language out of this. If you are not actively doing anything to rectify these alleged problems you claim are happening in Pentecost and are allowing people to continue to fall victim to them, up to and including your own daughter, you are just as guilty.

Respectfully, regarding the bolded, would you please post that scripture you are speaking of.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

See 162. As far as your inconsistencies, Chris/Aquila did return to this forum under the name Antipas and EB was one of, if not the first, to catch on even though Antipas at first tried very hard to cover his tracks. Only when EB called him out on it publicly and others realized the truth and followed suit, did Christ/Aquila/Antipas stop trying to hide it, even though he never admitted to it. Yet, as an admin I had the proof, and so, banned him again.

As far as EB's and Aquila's prior, historical interactions are concerned, while you are free to perceive them however you will, the truth is your perceptions are severely colored by your own bias. Aquila, as several other members here can attest, was a mess who caused more problems than probably anyone in recent memory, apart from Sean.

So, you've learned something, right?. You are and were wrong. Your discernment, not EB's, is off, and so, you might seriously consider slowing down before you spout off on the forum about things you don't know anything about. Truth over feelings and all that.

So Antipas was Aquila? The old folks have a saying, “even a blind hog can find an acorn, sometimes.” So since we are all concerned about truth, answer a question for me Votive Soul.

Are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

Keep it simple and truthful. Because if they are the same person, Rev Ike just told a whopper. If they are not the same, EB’s discernment is as I put it “perhaps a bit rusty “.

So, Votive Soul, are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

So Antipas was Aquila? The old folks have a saying, “even a blind hog can find an acorn, sometimes.” So since we are all concerned about truth, answer a question for me Votive Soul.

Are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

Keep it simple and truthful. Because if they are the same person, Rev Ike just told a whopper. If they are not the same, EB’s discernment is as I put it “perhaps a bit rusty “.

So, Votive Soul, are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

No they aren’t the same person.

But you are still a sore loser

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

So Antipas was Aquila? The old folks have a saying, “even a blind hog can find an acorn, sometimes.” So since we are all concerned about truth, answer a question for me Votive Soul.

Are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

Keep it simple and truthful. Because if they are the same person, Rev Ike just told a whopper. If they are not the same, EB’s discernment is as I put it “perhaps a bit rusty “.

So, Votive Soul, are Rev Ike and Chris the same person?

Yes?

No?

No I am not Chris, but being on the forum less than a few weeks and I have been already insulted and the finding fact that "Aqulias" is accused of being too "liberal" make me question why the Forum is even open.

I am leaving the forum and will remove my name from being a participant. Enjoy!

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

No I am not Chris, but being on the forum less than a few weeks and I have been already insulted and the finding fact that "Aqulias" is accused of being too "liberal" make me question why the Forum is even open.

I am leaving the forum and will remove my name from being a participant. Enjoy!

Hey Rev this is Apostolic Friends Forum, so some of us are the friends and other are the Apostolic's. It is not a bad place. I don't post much. Don't take off the place needs some fresh blood.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You are a sore loser.

Yep! And Rev Ike is Chris!

Actually I am not sore, sorry.

And I was trying to figure out just when I lost or what it is that I lost, then I considered the source. Your batting average is plummeting. Your gift of discernment is REALLY rusty.

I AM praying for you though.


Seriously