Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And it is that simple.

I would venture to say any other way of viewing it is teaching another Gospel.

New here - I grabbed this quote to pose a question about “another gospel”...
1. I Reread Acts 2 and noted who Peter is addressing “Men of Judea and all who dwell in JerusaMen of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” he was addressing Jews... Raised Pentecostal I was always acutely aware of the many languages and always assumed Peters address that day was directed to all nations.
2. Acts 15 - Paul meets with the Jerusalem church regarding the Gentiles and in verses 28-29 Only four (4) commands were sent to the Gentiles to follow.
3. Acts 16 -Paul’s mission trip after meeting with the Jerusalem church in verse 30 the Gentile jailer asks the same question as the Jews in Acts 2 “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response was that he should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and the baptized him and him family. No mention of tongues.

My question - Is the gospel to the Jew different than the gospel to the Gentile?
If not why two different responses to the same question?
Why does Paul in Galatians differentiate a gospel to the Jew and a gospel to the gentile? Gal 2:7

ps - In Acts 2 the 3000 added were baptized, I was shocked when I found no reference to any of the speaking in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

New here - I grabbed this quote to pose a question about “another gospel”...
1. I Reread Acts 2 and noted who Peter is addressing “Men of Judea and all who dwell in JerusaMen of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” he was addressing Jews... Raised Pentecostal I was always acutely aware of the many languages and always assumed Peters address that day was directed to all nations.
2. Acts 15 - Paul meets with the Jerusalem church regarding the Gentiles and in verses 28-29 Only four (4) commands were sent to the Gentiles to follow.
3. Acts 16 -Paul’s mission trip after meeting with the Jerusalem church in verse 30 the Gentile jailer asks the same question as the Jews in Acts 2 “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response was that he should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and the baptized him and him family. No mention of tongues.

My question - Is the gospel to the Jew different than the gospel to the Gentile?
If not why two different responses to the same question?
Why does Paul in Galatians differentiate a gospel to the Jew and a gospel to the gentile? Gal 2:7

ps - In Acts 2 the 3000 added were baptized, I was shocked when I found no reference to any of the speaking in tongues.

Galatians is referring to the people they are speaking and ministering to - Jews and Gentiles., not two Gospels. Otherwise, chapter 2 would contradict chapter 1:

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ to another gospel:Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

Also, the precedent was set in the Book of Acts in regard to speaking in tongues. It wasn’t necessary to say it over and over, because their focus was on belief in Jesus Christ.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

New here - I grabbed this quote to pose a question about “another gospel”...
1. I Reread Acts 2 and noted who Peter is addressing “Men of Judea and all who dwell in JerusaMen of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” he was addressing Jews... Raised Pentecostal I was always acutely aware of the many languages and always assumed Peters address that day was directed to all nations.
2. Acts 15 - Paul meets with the Jerusalem church regarding the Gentiles and in verses 28-29 Only four (4) commands were sent to the Gentiles to follow.
3. Acts 16 -Paul’s mission trip after meeting with the Jerusalem church in verse 30 the Gentile jailer asks the same question as the Jews in Acts 2 “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response was that he should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and the baptized him and him family. No mention of tongues.

My question - Is the gospel to the Jew different than the gospel to the Gentile?
If not why two different responses to the same question?
Why does Paul in Galatians differentiate a gospel to the Jew and a gospel to the gentile? Gal 2:7

ps - In Acts 2 the 3000 added were baptized, I was shocked when I found no reference to any of the speaking in tongues.

2. That’s for already saved believers.
3. He first said "believe" but then he baptized them. It seems that sometimes the Apostles don't tell you the whole story.

See this:

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
— Acts 3:19

Wait what? Peter forgot to talk about baptism in his second sermon?

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
— Acts 17:30

Paul didn’t preach the same gospel? Only repentance?

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
— Acts 10:43

Peter said that, I thought he said baptism was necessary for the forgiveness of sins!!


What do you think is happening here?

[JamesGlen]

How do you guys determine which speaking in tongues are legit as initial evidence/sign of Holyghost infilling, and which are not legit...not the “real tongues of the Bible”, when people speak in tongues?

In example, various other organizations, demons or religions...

(Especially if there are not visible “cloven tongues like as a fire” setting upon each one...)

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Galatians is referring to the people they are speaking and ministering to - Jews and Gentiles., not two Gospels. Otherwise, chapter 2 would contradict chapter 1:

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ to another gospel:Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

Also, the precedent was set in the Book of Acts in regard to speaking in tongues. It wasn’t necessary to say it over and over, because their focus was on belief in Jesus Christ.

In regard to the bold portion:

Cloven tongues like as of fire was just as much a precedent as speaking in tongues. In fact the cloven tongues preceded the other tongues. So, according to Luke, cloven tongues were a precedent to the precedent that you referred to. It seems we pick and choose our precedents.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

How do you guys determine which speaking in tongues are legit as initial evidence/sign of Holyghost infilling, and which are not legit...not the “real tongues of the Bible”, when people speak in tongues?

In example, various other organizations, demons or religions...

(Especially if there are not visible “cloven tongues like as a fire” setting upon each one...)

I think the person most interested in knowing if it was legit is the one receiving it.
All we can tell is that a language was authentic-looking, and by what we feel also in our spirit. There is a thing call discernment. Also you can confirm it by what happens afterwards with that soul.

At times I have doubted somebody got it even though others say the person got it. And other times there is no doubt in my spirit. Sometimes I have been proven wrong by the fruit and obvious anointing afterwards, or the person speaking clearly in tongues again.
Anyways, the ultimate interested in knowing is the actual soul receiving it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

1 Cor. 14:18-19

Why did Paul thank God he spoke in tongues more than they all? Was he walking in pride? Trying to put others down?

On the contrary it would seem he is trying to ENCOURAGE THEM to speak in tongues more than they were.

If he spoke in tongues more than they all and it was NOT IN THE CHURCH where was it?

Obviously in his private prayer time.

It seems either he was boasting or using himself as an example that the believer should take advantage of the benefit of praying in tongues. And if they all could NOT pray in tongues it would SEEM indeed he was boasting.

Amen

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In regard to the bold portion:

Cloven tongues like as of fire was just as much a precedent as speaking in tongues. In fact the cloven tongues preceded the other tongues. So, according to Luke, cloven tongues were a precedent to the precedent that you referred to. It seems we pick and choose our precedents.

There was also a rushing mighty wind.

Out of all the various occurrences of people receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts, and with all the various factors that occurred (wind, cloven tongues like fire, speaking with other tongues, magnifying God, prophesying), the only current that runs through all of them is speaking with other tongues.

How God chooses to operate or what He chooses to manifest in addition to causing someone to speak with other tongues when He pours out His Spirit is His prerogative.

None of these things, therefore, need to be considered precedent because they do not set a general principle or rule in and of themselves, not being recurring themes. Speaking with other tongues, however, is a precedent, legally speaking, because it is recurrent, and does give us a general principle or rule in this matter.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There was also a rushing mighty wind.

Out of all the various occurrences of people receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts, and with all the various factors that occurred (wind, cloven tongues like fire, speaking with other tongues, magnifying God, prophesying), the only current that runs through all of them is speaking with other tongues.

How God chooses to operate or what He chooses to manifest in addition to causing someone to speak with other tongues when He pours out His Spirit is His prerogative.

None of these things, therefore, need to be considered precedent because they do not set a general principle or rule in and of themselves, not being recurring themes. Speaking with other tongues, however, is a precedent, legally speaking, because it is recurrent, and does give us a general principle or rule in this matter.

Exactly!!! Cornelius' household spoke with tongues when filled with the Holy Ghost and yet there is no mention of wind or cloven tongues as fire.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

New here - I grabbed this quote to pose a question about “another gospel”...
1. I Reread Acts 2 and noted who Peter is addressing “Men of Judea and all who dwell in JerusaMen of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” he was addressing Jews... Raised Pentecostal I was always acutely aware of the many languages and always assumed Peters address that day was directed to all nations.
2. Acts 15 - Paul meets with the Jerusalem church regarding the Gentiles and in verses 28-29 Only four (4) commands were sent to the Gentiles to follow.
3. Acts 16 -Paul’s mission trip after meeting with the Jerusalem church in verse 30 the Gentile jailer asks the same question as the Jews in Acts 2 “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response was that he should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and the baptized him and him family. No mention of tongues.

My question - Is the gospel to the Jew different than the gospel to the Gentile?
If not why two different responses to the same question?
Why does Paul in Galatians differentiate a gospel to the Jew and a gospel to the gentile? Gal 2:7

ps - In Acts 2 the 3000 added were baptized, I was shocked when I found no reference to any of the speaking in tongues.

Hi Chris.