Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 08-28-2013, 12:20 PM
Jack Shephard's Avatar
Jack Shephard Jack Shephard is offline
Strange in a Strange Land...


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Island
Posts: 5,511
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
Yes, I do believe the Gospel is Acts 2:38.

Why do I believe that?

Because, Paul in Galatians 1:15-18 says,

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.]"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Paul later goes on to preach in II Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

And in I Peter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I believe that the Apostles so closely tied in the "Good News" to what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that they made no distinction as we do today. How do you OBEY the death, burial and resurrection? You listen to what Peter preached and OBEY that. Therefore, it is the Gospel for me.
Oooooooooookay....
__________________
"If we don't learn to live together we're gonna die alone"
Jack Shephard.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-28-2013, 12:47 PM
houston houston is offline
Isaiah 56:4-5


 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SOUTH ZION
Posts: 11,307
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

JS,

Peter MUST have told Paul about Acts 2!!!
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-28-2013, 12:50 PM
Jason B Jason B is offline
Saved by Grace


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post

The evidence of the Spirit was and is tongues. I don't see the confusion there.
"The evidence of the Spirit is tongues."

That IS the confusion.

The simple fact I'd that most believers throughout history have not spoken in tongues. The ones who did the most for the progress of the gospel and the Christian faith did not speak in tongues. Basically all the Bible translators (Tyndales, Wycliffe's,etc) the Reformers (Luther, Hus, Knox, Wesley, etc.). The revivalists (Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, Spurgeon, etc). The hymnists (Watts, Newton, Wesley, etc) most anyone whose made meaningful contributions to the faith didn't speak in tongues.

The simple fact is every single week there are thousands of people begging God for the Holy Ghost at Pentecostal altars who go away receiving nothing if tongues is the only initial evidence, in direct contradiction to Luke 11:13.

The simple fact is that while tongue speakers are all the rage now, they haven't ever been a force in Christianity outside of possibly the first century.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards

"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship

"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-28-2013, 01:43 PM
Real Realism's Avatar
Real Realism Real Realism is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 184
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Jason Badejo, in full disclosure, I have been asking many of the same questions (i.e. the thousands of years without record of tongues, the inferences by Paul of not all speaking in tongues - because, except for Renee's commentary on the difference between "unknown" and "other" tongues - I really see no distinction between the tongues discussed in Acts and those mentioned in the epistles).

But all that aside, how do you interpret Acts 8 when the Samaritans had definitely believed ("accepted God's message") AND even were baptized...but those who were with them sent for Peter and John to pray for them because they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost ("the Holy Spirit had fallen upon none of them")? If the Holy Spirit is given to a believer at the moment of their acceptance of the Gospel - how in the world did those who were preaching to them know so certainly that they hadn't received the Holy Spirit? And why were they so very certain, convinced by some obviously demonstrable sign (that Simon was able to see occur) that they HAD received the Holy Spirit after they were prayed for by Peter and John?

Last edited by Real Realism; 08-28-2013 at 01:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-28-2013, 02:35 PM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,267
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo View Post
"The evidence of the Spirit is tongues."

That IS the confusion.

The simple fact I'd that most believers throughout history have not spoken in tongues. The ones who did the most for the progress of the gospel and the Christian faith did not speak in tongues. Basically all the Bible translators (Tyndales, Wycliffe's,etc) the Reformers (Luther, Hus, Knox, Wesley, etc.). The revivalists (Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, Spurgeon, etc). The hymnists (Watts, Newton, Wesley, etc) most anyone whose made meaningful contributions to the faith didn't speak in tongues.

The simple fact is every single week there are thousands of people begging God for the Holy Ghost at Pentecostal altars who go away receiving nothing if tongues is the only initial evidence, in direct contradiction to Luke 11:13.

The simple fact is that while tongue speakers are all the rage now, they haven't ever been a force in Christianity outside of possibly the first century.
Jason, These people don't mean anything to me. Why would they and their history be more important than what the Bible actually says? If I was on a deserted island and only had a Bible, would they be important to me then?

I think a lot of people walk away because they don't have a clue about true repentance and they also focus more on the gift than they do the Giver. I could use one of my own sisters as an example. She came to my church to receive the Holy Ghost so that she could go back to the Baptist Church. She has never received the Holy Ghost and ended going back and getting re-baptized in the titles. lol Now she does whatever she can to stop my mother from ever attending.

Another thing, I have seen in the past 5 years, many women wanting to visit our church, but when asked if they have to wear a dress, the answer given to them is, "No, you come as you are and let God lead and guide you." lol

What they are actually saying is, "We'll get to that later." LOL! And I think these women know it. I agree with Lafon's awesome thread stating how he felt it was a huge deception to keep people from receiving from God. I couldn't agree more.

The Word preached by Peter was so powerful, the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and those in his household. He laid a beautiful foundation and didn't stand in their midst reciting Acts 2:38.

A month or so ago I was engaged in a conversation on Twitter. A young black boy was, apparently, following the conversation even though he doesn't follow me on Twitter. I never start out talking about Acts 2:38 or tongues, etc. I start out Peter's way, laying a foundation. Sort of like the Bible study you might be familiar with - Into His Marvelous Light.

He kept tweeting - "What else can you tell me?" and "Tell me more". He kept re-tweeting to his followers our conversation. I was praying that God would give me the knowledge as to what he needed to hear that very moment. The closest I got to tongues was only speaking about Jesus promising to send the Comforter. What I felt was that I had given him enough to search out what I had told him and he would find more truth for himself.

Real Realism brings up a great point concerning Acts 8 and the Samaritans. How do respond to that? It's that "initial evidence" monkey on our back once again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-28-2013, 03:06 PM
houston houston is offline
Isaiah 56:4-5


 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SOUTH ZION
Posts: 11,307
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Why is he a young black boy? Why not just a young boy?

You are a racist!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-28-2013, 03:11 PM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,267
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by houston View Post
Why is he a young black boy? Why not just a young boy?

You are a racist!
I said a young black boy, because he is young and he is black. If I am sharing or telling a story, I want the visuals to be exact. Wouldn't you do that if you were publishing a book?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-28-2013, 04:47 PM
houston houston is offline
Isaiah 56:4-5


 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SOUTH ZION
Posts: 11,307
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
I said a young black boy, because he is young and he is black. If I am sharing or telling a story, I want the visuals to be exact. Wouldn't you do that if you were publishing a book?
You're not publishing a book, sweetheart.



(I didn't see who made the post before responding)
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-28-2013, 04:58 PM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,267
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by houston View Post
You're not publishing a book, sweetheart.

(I didn't see who made the post before responding)
I was getting in practice for when I do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-29-2013, 03:33 PM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,267
Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by houston View Post
JS,

Peter MUST have told Paul about Acts 2!!!
Houston, Why do you suppose that Paul stressed in Galatians 1, that he had been in Damascus (the country of the Gentiles), and that he didn't consult any of the Apostles in Jerusalem (the seat of the Apostles) at the outset of his conversion? He stressed that he didn't receive his commission or appointment from man, but that it came directly from God.

So, after three years he ends up with Peter for 15 days? Looks like they shared the common faith that Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. And it isn't too far fetched to believe that Peter shared the details, confirming what Paul also knew to be truth.

You can't say they didn't share their experiences and understanding of Jesus Christ and corroborate on the Gospel Message.

They shared the exact same experience - Peter (Acts 10) and Paul (Acts 19).

What do you think Paul was doing with Peter for 15 days?
__________________

Last edited by Pressing-On; 08-29-2013 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Initial Physical Evidence samp Deep Waters 138 03-12-2007 10:25 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.