The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

[Justin]

I’ve been studying on the Gift of Tongue as Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12. In verses 29-30, Paul asks questions in which he expects the answer to be “no”:

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 ?

If all are not expected to speak in tongues, how do we validate the “Tongues Initial evidence” doctrine? In chapter 14, Paul continues about tongues… he references speaking to God (in tongues) for private prayer, and speaking to others in tongues (as long as there is an interpreter). In my opinion, Paul does not differentiate between speaking to God in tongues and speaking to others in tongues.

When I read about tongues in Acts 2 and subsequent chapters where people speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Ghost, it seems to reflect the Gift of Tongues… which Paul says not everyone will speak in Tongues…

[Pliny]

Obviously there is a contradiction...


A contradiction in the understanding not the bible.
Read the passage of John 3 and pay attention to what Jesus says concerning the wind. There is a sound that comes with the wind - so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost that sound was revealed as tongues. Thus, there are two types/purposes of tongues.
1) They build up the individual.
2) When the "gift of tongues" is used they are intended to build up the church.


How did the Jews know the gentiles received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10)?
Because they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

In Acts 8 we are not told specifically what happened but it is apparent that something miraculous took place. Simon would never have offered money unless it was truly a remarkable event. Though it does not say specifically it certainly is more than plausible that he heard them speak with tongues.


The "gift of tongues" is to be by one or two only. Contradicts Acts except when understood that they are two separate things.

Paul also said forbid not to speak with tongues.
He also said that he is glad that he speaks in tongues more than ALL of them, indicating that all of them speak with tongues.

As I mentioned earlier tongues builds up the individual's faith. Therefore, every individual should speak in tongues and yield themselves to the Holy Ghost.

The gift of tongues is intended for the purpose of edifying the body so should be done by relatively few because it is the interpretation that matters in that instance.

[Scott Hutchinson]

The gift of tongues is for congregational use,the usage of the gift of tongues differs from initial evidence tongues.

[Justin]

The gift of tongues is for congregational use,the usage of the gift of tongues differs from initial evidence tongues.

I under stand that this is crucial to prove the initial evidence doctrine, but where in scripture can this be proven?

One could say that when the folks in Acts 2, 8 and 10 received the Holy Ghost, they simply began exercising the Gift of Tongues (1 Cor 12-14). What's also critical to note is that they also "prophesied" which is another Gift of the Spirit.

Are you going to say there is a difference between Acts 2 "prophecy" and the gift of the Spirit (prophecy)? You'd have to, if you differentiate between the tongues.

[Aquila]

I'd say that it is definitely "initial evidence" in that it served as the initial evidence in Acts. However, something can be present without evidence of it's reality. It's the first thing we might look for... but not the only thing. In ancient times "Christians" who were seeking God experienced spiritual "ecstasy" wherein they received visions, were visited by angels, and worked healings and miracles. Some spoke unintelligibly. However, record doesn't show that all did. Therefore, I argue that it is the "initial evidence" we should look for... but not the only evidence. We must be discerning.

[Scott Hutchinson]

In Acts 2:4 all who received The Holy Ghost baptism spake with tongues,there also is several meanings of the word prophesying. Prophesying can also mean speaking under inspiration or it can be fore telling if you will.In a church service all would not give messages in tongues,that is Paul what meant in 1.Cor.12.

[Justin]

In Acts 2:4 all who received The Holy Ghost baptism spake with tongues,there also is several meanings of the word prophesying. Prophesying can also mean speaking under inspiration or it can be fore telling if you will.In a church service all would not give messages in tongues,that is Paul what meant in 1.Cor.12.

You are correct. I just taught on this subject the other day. I don't think anyone would disagree that the prophecy mentioned in Acts 2:4 is the same as the gift mentioned in 1 Cor 12.

[renee819]

Justin, I go into this more thoroughly in the Debate Room under Salvation Issues. “The difference in Other Tongues and Unknown Tongues.

The main difference is---Other Tongues is a foreign language. And anyone close by the speaker that understands that language, can interpret it.
The purpose? As evidence when a person receives the Holy Ghost. And we are never told of any other evidence of the Holy Ghost, in the Bible.

Unknown Tongues---no man understands, unless God gives the interpretation. I believe that Unknown Tongues is God's language.

The purpose,...

It is our prayer language, in private prayer at home. (It is easier to pray in Unknown tongues than it is to pray in English, or whatever a persons native language is.)

It edify's the speaker. Builds up their spirit.

We are praying directly to God, and we are speaking mysteries. (It has been my experience, when I spend a lot of time in unknown tongues (Privately) I can write better. Think better. Keep my mind more on spiritual things easier.)

When it is spoken at church, it should be one at a time and wait for the interpretation, and then, it becomes Prophecy.

Whereas with Other Tongues (people receiving the Holy Ghost) can be by the hundreds if God so chose. Like the 120 at Pentecost.

[Abiding Now]

When I PERSONALLY received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues I never doubted tongues after that.

Whether it was another person receiving the Spirit, praying in the Spirit or it was the gift of tongues and interpretation.

It always just blesses me way down deep.

[Pressing-On]

It is our prayer language, in private prayer at home. (It is easier to pray in Unknown tongues than it is to pray in English, or whatever a persons native language is.)


When taking in the whole counsel, I don't see any conclusive or emphatic evidence that Paul is instructing people to only speak in tongues at home and only in private - outside of tongues and interpretation.

I also don't see the Disciples embracing the terminology - "prayer language".

The instructions do give the idea that the person is speaking to God and not the church body, edifying themselves alone in a quiet and personal manner:

"For 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." 1 Corinthians 14:2

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." I Corinthians 14:4

Again, nothing here indicates the person is not with the church body.

I also find that Paul is showing that the speakers involved in tongues and interpretation (I Cor. 14:28) were very well able to control themselves, indicating that they could or should be able to identify between edification of the church body and personal edification.

Anyone who has been around Pentecost, for any length of time, knows the difference as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am just glad I speak in tongues more than you all. :highfive

[renee819]

When taking in the whole counsel, I don't see any conclusive or emphatic evidence that Paul is instructing people to only speak in tongues at home and only in private - outside of tongues and interpretation.

I also don't see the Disciples embracing the terminology - "prayer language".

The instructions do give the idea that the person is speaking to God and not the church body, edifying themselves alone in a quiet and personal manner:

"For 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." 1 Corinthians 14:2

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." I Corinthians 14:4

Again, nothing here indicates the person is not with the church body.

I also find that Paul is showing that the speakers involved in tongues and interpretation (I Cor. 14:28) were very well able to control themselves, indicating that they could or should be able to identify between edification of the church body and personal edification.

Anyone who has been around Pentecost, for any length of time, knows the difference as well.

Yes, they diffently were able to control themselves, as we should also.

Pressing On, No there is no terminology such as "prayer language." but putting the scriptures together we see that Paul is talking about prayer, as well as edifying the church.

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God"

When you are speaking to God, you are praying. Then down a little farther,

1 Cor14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
: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.
:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

If Paul 'spoke in tongues more than them all, yet didn't speak much in the churches, where did he speak in tongues?

I would say, in private, and it would be a prayer language.

[Pressing-On]

Yes, they diffently were able to control themselves, as we should also.

Pressing On, No there is no terminology such as "prayer language." but putting the scriptures together we see that Paul is talking about prayer, as well as edifying the church.
I would rather prefer to use "speaking in tongues" as the Disciples never used any other term.


When you are speaking to God, you are praying. Then down a little farther,


If Paul 'spoke in tongues more than them all, yet didn't speak much in the churches, where did he speak in tongues?

I would say, in private, and it would be a prayer language.
I would have to consider Paul's whole counsel and instruction in I Cor 14.

In I Corinthians 14:5, Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:"

Notice that in the Greek, "rather" is defined to mean, "more, in a greater degree".

Paul is saying, "I would that you spoke with tongues, but in a larger degree, that you would prophesy."

We, therefore, cannot come to the emphatic conclusion that speaking in tongues is nixed in a church body, other than tongues and interpretation. "More" or "in a greater degree" implies that you are or should be doing more than something else.

I Corinthians 14:19, "had rather" is defined differently. It means, "to will, wish" - "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,...",

In essence, Paul is saying, "I wish to speak with five words of my understanding."

Paul wouldn't give instructions that would contradict each other.

He ends the instruction with - 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order.

Earnestly desire to prophesy more, don't forbid anyone to speak in tongues. Let everything be done decently and in order.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
Yes, they diffently were able to control themselves, as we should also.

Pressing On, No there is no terminology such as "prayer language." but putting the scriptures together we see that Paul is talking about prayer, as well as edifying the church.

I would rather prefer to use "speaking in tongues" as the Disciples never used any other term.

I would have to consider Paul's whole counsel and instruction in I Cor 14.

In I Corinthians 14:5, Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:"

Notice that in the Greek, "rather" is defined to mean, "more, in a greater degree".

Paul is saying, "I would that you spoke with tongues, but in a larger degree, that you would prophesy."

We, therefore, cannot come to the emphatic conclusion that speaking in tongues is nixed in a church body, other than tongues and interpretation. "More" or "in a greater degree" implies that you are or should be doing more than something else.

I Corinthians 14:19, "had rather" is defined differently. It means, "to will, wish" - "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,...",

In essence, Paul is saying, "I wish to speak with five words of my understanding."

Paul wouldn't give instructions that would contradict each other.

He ends the instruction with - 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order.

Earnestly desire to prophesy more, don't forbid anyone to speak in tongues. Let everything be done decently and in order.
__________________

Pressing On wrote
Paul wouldn't give instructions that would contradict each other.

Right! And I don't mean that he did.

The Gifts of the Spirit was a new surprise from God to the church. And it seems that many didn't know how to control or handle the gifts. Therefore Paul wrote 1 Cor. 12-13-14 as instructions on how they were to be in self control and yet desire and use the Gifts that God gave.

I believe that many were trying to speak in tongues all at the same time, as we see in many Charismatic churches and on TV. They were abusing the Gifts.

He wanted them to use them in the church, all of them, including speaking in tongues, because when it is interpreted, it is Prophecy and will edify the church.
But he wanted them to speak one at a time and to keep order in the church. The disorder that is reported in some churches, is not of God.

But when He told them that he spoke in tongues more than them all. If he did it in the churches, they would have known it, and he wouldn't have had to tell them.
Then he told them in the church he would rather speak five words of understanding than to speak in tongues. I believe he was also telling them, to pray in tongues at home.
Who doesn't need constantly to have their spirit edified?

[Pressing-On]

I believe he was also telling them, to pray in tongues at home.


I guess we will have to disagree on this.

Again, I Cor 14:5, says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather/more; in a greater degree that ye prophesied:"

"More" or "in a greater degree" cannot mean nix it and only pray in tongues at home. Unless we are handing out duct tape at the door, I don't see how someone is going to stop a move of God during a service.

[Hoovie]

I pray many prayers in church that are not audibly discernible in public assembly. This may be with or without tongues. This should be included in this discussion of Paul's admonition of publicly speaking in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

I pray many prayers in church that are not audibly discernible in public assembly. This may be with or without tongues. This should be included in this discussion of Paul's admonition of publicly speaking in tongues.
I agree. My prayers are not always audibly discernible in the church and may be with or without tongues. When Paul speaks of edifying ourselves and speaking to ourselves and God, he is talking about the distinction of volume between personal edification and tongues and interpretation.

If we are instructed to speak in tongues in church only in the event of tongues and interpretation, than anyone initially receiving the Holy Ghost wouldn't be able to do that either.

[houston]

I agree. My prayers are not always audibly discernible in the church and may be with or without tongues. When Paul speaks of edifying ourselves and speaking to ourselves and God, he is talking about the distinction of volume between personal edification and tongues and interpretation.

If we are instructed to speak in tongues in church only in the event of tongues and interpretation, than anyone initially receiving the Holy Ghost wouldn't be able to do that either.

It's only problematic in your belief system that requires proof.

[Pressing-On]

It's only problematic in your belief system that requires proof.

If you attended a church, I would think you also had a belief system. :tease

[houston]

If you attended a church, I would think you also had a belief system. :tease

Relevance?

[Pressing-On]

Relevance?

Totally relevant.

[houston]

Totally relevant.

How?

[renee819]

I guess we will have to disagree on this.

Again, I Cor 14:5, says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather/more; in a greater degree that ye prophesied:"

"More" or "in a greater degree" cannot mean nix it and only pray in tongues at home. Unless we are handing out duct tape at the door, I don't see how someone is going to stop a move of God during a service.

Pressing On, What are we disagreeing on?

I'm not advocating stopping people from speaking in unknown tongues at church. Or anything to stop the flow of the Spirit.

But I don't think that all should be speaking in tongues at the same time. We must take the Word for what it means, an not what is popular today.

1Corinthians 14:23 If 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?
:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

When I pray in church, as I said before, it is easier to pray in tongues than in my normal language, but I pray quietly to myself, because, Paul wrote,

1 Corinthians 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.
:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

It is evident, is it not, that Paul didn't want them all speaking at the same time. Nor did he pray, in church, in tongues. Therefore you have to ask, where did he pray in tongues more than all of them?

And then we look at he scripture that you gave,
Again, I Cor 14:5, says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather/more; in a greater degree that ye prophesied:"

Paul wishes that they all spoke in Unknown tongues. Why? Because it would edify their spiritual life. But rather that they prophesied. Why? Because whether it was the interpretation of tongues, or pure prophecy, it would benefit those that were listening. Edify the whole church.

[Pressing-On]

Pressing On, What are we disagreeing on?

I'm not advocating stopping people from speaking in unknown tongues at church. Or anything to stop the flow of the Spirit.

But I don't think that all should be speaking in tongues at the same time. We must take the Word for what it means, an not what is popular today.

.

When I pray in church, as I said before, it is easier to pray in tongues than in my normal language, but I pray quietly to myself, because, Paul wrote,

.

It is evident, is it not, that Paul didn't want them all speaking at the same time. Nor did he pray, in church, in tongues. Therefore you have to ask, where did he pray in tongues more than all of them?

And then we look at he scripture that you gave,


Paul wishes that they all spoke in Unknown tongues. Why? Because it would edify their spiritual life. But rather that they prophesied. Why? Because whether it was the interpretation of tongues, or pure prophecy, it would benefit those that were listening. Edify the whole church.

I think that what you are saying is confusing or I am misunderstanding you completely.

You appear to be saying:

1) I'm not advocating people stop speaking in unknown tongues in church.
2) When I pray in church, it is easier to pray in tongues than my normal language.
3) Paul never prayed in tongues in church.

I think you are using the English translation of "rather" as meaning "to prefer that to", but the Greek is using "more/in a greater degree". Whatever is being said, I want to know what the Greek is saying.

[renee819]

Pressing On wrote
I think that what you are saying is confusing or I am misunderstanding you completely.

You appear to be saying:

1) I'm not advocating people stop speaking in unknown tongues in church.
2) When I pray in church, it is easier to pray in tongues than my normal language.
3) Paul never prayed in tongues in church.

I think you are using the English translation of "rather" as meaning "to prefer that to", but the Greek is using "more/in a greater degree". Whatever is being said, I want to know what the Greek is saying.


Pressing On wrote,
I think that what you are saying is confusing or I am misunderstanding you completely.

I believe it is the latter---”or I am misunderstanding you completely. “ I really don't know how it is confusing.

Pressing On wrote
You appear to be saying:

1) I'm not advocating people stop speaking in unknown tongues in church.

And I never will. Paul didn't either, only that they behave decently and in order, in speaking one at a time. And waiting for the interpretation.
Pressing On, are you going to a Charismatic Church where all speak in tongues at the same time?

2) When I pray in church, it is easier to pray in tongues than my normal language.

But the rest of what I said, gives the sense to it.

Renee wrote
“but I pray quietly to myself, because, Paul wrote,”

1 Corinthians 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.
:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified

To paraphrase, Paul isn't saying that he prays in church, but when he prays n the spirit, he doesn't understand what he is saying, so he will pray with the understanding also. But if he prayed with the Spirit, (since he doesn't know what he is saying and those that hear him don't know either, then how could anyone bless that “seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? “

People were using tongues for Religious Pride, as I've seen many do today. “See, I'm holier than you, because I speak in tongues.” and especially on TV. I can't stand to watch any of those preachers.

3) Paul never prayed in tongues in church.

If Paul prayed in tongues in the churches, he could not have written the 16th and 17th verse.

Maybe I shouldn't say, he never. Because he may have prayed as I do, quietly to myself. A person sitting next to me, wouldn't even know that I was praying in tongues.

Pressing On, what is confusing? Are you saying that all should be speaking in tongues at the same time?

[renee819]

I agree. My prayers are not always audibly discernible in the church and may be with or without tongues. When Paul speaks of edifying ourselves and speaking to ourselves and God, he is talking about the distinction of volume between personal edification and tongues and interpretation.

If we are instructed to speak in tongues in church only in the event of tongues and interpretation, than anyone initially receiving the Holy Ghost wouldn't be able to do that either.

I missed this one.

The difference is, These Christians in 1 Cor., had already received the Holy Ghost.
And now Paul is instructing them, on how to use the Gifts of the Spirit, that God divides between those that are already saved.

When people receive the Holy Ghost, whether 2 people or 120, they may all speak at the same time. Because the ONLY reason that they are speaking in Other Tongues---(NOT Unknown Tongues,) was to receive the Holy Ghost. And it does not need to be interpreted. It is the evidence.

[Pressing-On]

Maybe I shouldn't say, he never. Because he may have prayed as I do, quietly to myself. A person sitting next to me, wouldn't even know that I was praying in tongues.

Pressing On, what is confusing? Are you saying that all should be speaking in tongues at the same time?
The bold and underlined was the confusion.

If you say that Paul "may have" prayed quietly and that you shouldn't say, "never", you cannot also say that Paul only prayed in tongues at home. You cannot say that the chapter stresses that we can only speak in tongues at home. It's not possible that could happen in a spirit filled church.

I don't go to a Charismatic church. I do know that if I speak quietly to myself and to God, the person in front of me and beside me are, more than likely, going to hear some utterance. A whisper can still be heard to those close by. Unless, of course, I put my head in a paper sack. The person sitting behind me might hear me. Someone a few rows back probably wouldn't.

I do believe we should teach and encourage more to pray that they would be used in the gift of prophecy. From my experience, many don't feel special, worthy, anointed enough or solely inadequate. God can use anyone who is willing. But, also from experience, you can teach that until the cows come home and not get it through a person's head that God desires they would obtain that gift.

[Pressing-On]

I missed this one.

The difference is, These Christians in 1 Cor., had already received the Holy Ghost.
And now Paul is instructing them, on how to use the Gifts of the Spirit, that God divides between those that are already saved.

When people receive the Holy Ghost, whether 2 people or 120, they may all speak at the same time. Because the ONLY reason that they are speaking in Other Tongues---(NOT Unknown Tongues,) was to receive the Holy Ghost. And it does not need to be interpreted. It is the evidence.

Sure, but you have a church body with say, 120 Spirit filled people, and three receive the Holy Ghost. That means that they are speaking in tongues, more than likely, loudly. You may have 5 or 10 visitors who don't know what is going on. I've been in a service where that happened. The visitor questioned what the person was doing. So, how does that work with the admonition to only speak in tongues when an interpretation is given?

Forbid not to speak in tongues. Paul just wants order and he wants the gifts to be in evidence. He doesn't want everyone standing around - all the time - every service - edifying themselves and not ministering to the body. That is all he is saying, IMO.

[houston]

How about teaching people to pray in English???

[Pressing-On]

How about teaching people to pray in English???

No habla ingles!!!!! :heeheehee

[Real Realism]

Sure, but you have a church body with say, 120 Spirit filled people, and three receive the Holy Ghost. That means that they are speaking in tongues, more than likely, loudly. You may have 5 or 10 visitors who don't know what is going on. I've been in a service where that happened. The visitor questioned what the person was doing. So, how does that work with the admonition to only speak in tongues when an interpretation is given?

Paul also explains that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 14:22) So, as you point out, there's certainly a place for unbelievers to hear someone speaking in tongues. (IMO, Acts 8 seems to be a prime example of unbelievers being awed by the demonstration of others receiving the Holy Ghost...likely, speaking in tongues. Even though Simon was a believer who was baptized, he was new to the faith and was fascinated by the power of God when he saw the Samaritans receive the Holy Ghost.)

Forbid not to speak in tongues. Paul just wants order and he wants the gifts to be in evidence. He doesn't want everyone standing around - all the time - every service - edifying themselves and not ministering to the body. That is all he is saying, IMO.

This is my understanding of the passage, as well. Actually, kind of reminds me of those church services that people would brag about being in..."blow out" service where "the preacher didn't even get a chance to preach"...where all the congregation is just praising and praying in tongues the whole time. Seems to me that this isn't an experience to be coveted, but actually that Paul is saying that those types of services don't really edify the body and certainly don't edify unbelievers. Something to think about.

But bringing this topic back around to its origin...since your understanding of 1 Corinthians 14 seems to line up very closely with my own...how DO we explain Paul's passing comments that insinuate not every believer speaks in tongues?

[Pressing-On]

Paul also explains that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 14:22) So, as you point out, there's certainly a place for unbelievers to hear someone speaking in tongues. (IMO, Acts 8 seems to be a prime example of unbelievers being awed by the demonstration of others receiving the Holy Ghost...likely, speaking in tongues. Even though Simon was a believer who was baptized, he was new to the faith and was fascinated by the power of God when he saw the Samaritans receive the Holy Ghost.)

Awesome! I like how you explained this. :thumbsup


This is my understanding of the passage, as well. Actually, kind of reminds me of those church services that people would brag about being in..."blow out" service where "the preacher didn't even get a chance to preach"...where all the congregation is just praising and praying in tongues the whole time. Seems to me that this isn't an experience to be coveted, but actually that Paul is saying that those types of services don't really edify the body and certainly don't edify unbelievers. Something to think about.
I've been in services like this and you can't stop it. It just hits and BAM! So, again, from our experiences, we know that doesn't happen ALL the time, and still supports Paul's teaching that he doesn't want us to stand around speaking in tongues without other gifts present and in operation every service. Consistently attending a particular location, it hasn't been my experience that the congregation only spoke in tongues without the other gifts in operation as well.

But bringing this topic back around to its origin...since your understanding of 1 Corinthians 14 seems to line up very closely with my own...how DO we explain Paul's passing comments that insinuate not every believer speaks in tongues?

I Cor 14:26 is referring to the operation of gifts. Others may use I Cor 14:26 to claim proof of "no evidence" on receiving God's Spirit. The only problem, the view would contradict the passages in Acts, i.e. with Simon, etc. And I Cor 12:30 would contradict the view as well, clearly stating that not all will be used in the gifts.

It's apparent that you must have the Spirit to operate in the gifts. And it is apparent in Acts that the evidence was tongues. You can't read in Acts 10:45-46 with Peter and the others being "astonished" that the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles stating, "for they heard them speak with tongues." I mean, I could go to the bank with that one passage alone. I could win a court case with that passage. :heeheehee

[mizpeh]

But bringing this topic back around to its origin...since your understanding of 1 Corinthians 14 seems to line up very closely with my own...how DO we explain Paul's passing comments that insinuate not every believer speaks in tongues?

Paul is speaking about the gift of tongues not the initial evidence of tongues.

[Jack Shephard]

How about teaching people to pray in English???

CDG, I am on a search for truth at the moment. I know you and I haven't been able to talk to you about it offline. I have a friend that I talk to about it though. I am searching for the relevance of tongues today. I have looked through scripture and have seen where God has used several warnings to a certain people prior to being wiped out, in the OT. In the NT it seems to be a similar action from God, but this is something I have talked about with my aforementioned friend. Anyway... what do you think CDG?

[houston]

I apologize. I was addressing PO.

[Jack Shephard]

I apologize. I was addressing PO.

I know man. I was just using this forum to spill it. I am sorry. I could have just text ya.

[houston]

CDG, I am on a search for truth at the moment. I know you and I haven't been able to talk to you about it offline. I have a friend that I talk to about it though. I am searching for the relevance of tongues today. I have looked through scripture and have seen where God has used several warnings to a certain people prior to being wiped out, in the OT. In the NT it seems to be a similar action from God, but this is something I have talked about with my aforementioned friend. Anyway... what do you think CDG?

I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. What does tongues have to do with wiping people out?

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
I missed this one.

The difference is, These Christians in 1 Cor., had already received the Holy Ghost.
And now Paul is instructing them, on how to use the Gifts of the Spirit, that God divides between those that are already saved.

When people receive the Holy Ghost, whether 2 people or 120, they may all speak at the same time. Because the ONLY reason that they are speaking in Other Tongues---(NOT Unknown Tongues,) was to receive the Holy Ghost. And it does not need to be interpreted. It is the evidence.
.

Pressing-on wrote,
Sure, but you have a church body with say, 120 Spirit filled people, and three receive the Holy Ghost. That means that they are speaking in tongues, more than likely, loudly. You may have 5 or 10 visitors who don't know what is going on. I've been in a service where that happened. The visitor questioned what the person was doing. So, how does that work with the admonition to only speak in tongues when an interpretation is given?

Pressing-on, you still have the two mixed up. When a person is receiving the Holy Ghost, they are speaking in Other Tongues, not in Unknown tongues.

Other Tongues----evidence of the Holy Ghost---which is Foreign Languages. If there just happens to be someone there that understands the language, they can interpret. Which is usually praises to God. But no where in the Bible does it say that Other Tongues has to be interpreted.

Unknown Tongues---is a gift from God, after a person has received the Holy Ghost.
The language is UNKNOWN---- it takes another Gift, the gift of Interpretation for the message to be known.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For 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.

“No man understandeth him'----it doesn't matter how many foreign languages, there are among the crowd, NO MAN can understand him.

There is one reason to speak in Other Tongues, and that is to receive the Holy Ghost. And should be simple and easy to explain, using Acts 2:4

I see 4 reasons to speak in Unknown Tongues, in 1 Cor. 14.

One----You are speaking mysteries. Meaning when you pray in tongues, you are praying the perfect prayer, because it is the Holy Ghost praying thru you.

Romans 8:26 Likewise 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.
:27 And 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.

Two ----When tongues are interpreted, it becomes Prophecy, and will edify the church.

Three---For the unbeliever, when it is interpreted, he sees the mighty power of God. As well the interpretation may even show the secrets of his heart and therefore cause him to repent.

Four----For individual edification. It strenghtens the spirit of the one speaking in Unknown Tongues.

Pressing-on wrote
Forbid not to speak in tongues. Paul just wants order and he wants the gifts to be in evidence. He doesn't want everyone standing around - all the time - every service - edifying themselves and not ministering to the body. That is all he is saying, IMO.

.If you remember one of my Posts, I was encouraging the saints to use their gift of tongues more in prayer. And I would encourage all if they don't have the gift to pray that God would give it to them. Or show them what gifts they have been given. I believe that everyone that has received the Holy Ghost has also received one of the gifts of the Spirit. And should use it as God directs.

However, the way that a church service is set up, does not leave much room for the Gifts to operate.

I would NEVER—NEVER , discourage anyone from using their gifts or to forbid anyone from speaking in tongues, as God directs. However I would discourage a room full of people all speaking in tongues all at the same time. As Paul did also. Unless it was a room full of people all receiving the Holy Ghost. And this is not a contradiction, if you understand the difference.

1 Corinthians 14:23 If 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?

[phareztamar]

well said my sister.Originally Posted by renee819
.


Pressing-on wrote,


Pressing-on, you still have the two mixed up. When a person is receiving the Holy Ghost, they are speaking in Other Tongues, not in Unknown tongues.

Other Tongues----evidence of the Holy Ghost---which is Foreign Languages. If there just happens to be someone there that understands the language, they can interpret. Which is usually praises to God. But no where in the Bible does it say that Other Tongues has to be interpreted.

Unknown Tongues---is a gift from God, after a person has received the Holy Ghost.
The language is UNKNOWN---- it takes another Gift, the gift of Interpretation for the message to be known.

.

“No man understandeth him'----it doesn't matter how many foreign languages, there are among the crowd, NO MAN can understand him.

There is one reason to speak in Other Tongues, and that is to receive the Holy Ghost. And should be simple and easy to explain, using Acts 2:4

I see 4 reasons to speak in Unknown Tongues, in 1 Cor. 14.

One----You are speaking mysteries. Meaning when you pray in tongues, you are praying the perfect prayer, because it is the Holy Ghost praying thru you.

.

Two ----When tongues are interpreted, it becomes Prophecy, and will edify the church.

Three---For the unbeliever, when it is interpreted, he sees the mighty power of God. As well the interpretation may even show the secrets of his heart and therefore cause him to repent.

Four----For individual edification. It strenghtens the spirit of the one speaking in Unknown Tongues.

Pressing-on wrote


.If you remember one of my Posts, I was encouraging the saints to use their gift of tongues more in prayer. And I would encourage all if they don't have the gift to pray that God would give it to them. Or show them what gifts they have been given. I believe that everyone that has received the Holy Ghost has also received one of the gifts of the Spirit. And should use it as God directs.

However, the way that a church service is set up, does not leave much room for the Gifts to operate.

I would NEVER—NEVER , discourage anyone from using their gifts or to forbid anyone from speaking in tongues, as God directs. However I would discourage a room full of people all speaking in tongues all at the same time. As Paul did also. Unless it was a room full of people all receiving the Holy Ghost. And this is not a contradiction, if you understand the difference.

[Pressing-On]

Pressing-on, you still have the two mixed up. When a person is receiving the Holy Ghost, they are speaking in Other Tongues, not in Unknown tongues.


I know you posted a lengthy post, which I appreciate, but let's start here as there is no point in going further if we can't clarify the point.

I don't believe I am getting them mixed up.

Acts 2:4 (other tongues) and I Cor 14:2;4;13;14;19 and 27 (unknown tongues) use the same Greek definition -

G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

It would be the same interchangeability as using Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost - same difference.

[renee819]

Pressing-on wrote,
I don't believe I am getting them mixed up.

Acts 2:4 (other tongues) and I Cor 14:2;4;13;14;19 and 27 (unknown tongues) use the same Greek definition -

G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

It would be the same interchangeability as using Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost - same difference.


Right! Tongues is the same, but the words proceeding them makes the difference.

The word proceeding Other Tongues, “Other”---heteros
Usage Notes:
..
English Words used in KJV:
another 43
other 42
other thing 3
some 2
next day 2
miscellaneous translations 7
[Total Count: 99]
..
of uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different :- altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.

And we know Other Tongues is Foreign Languages, because the Jews, that were there from different countries, understood what was being said.

In 1 Cor.14, the word Unknown was added by the translators. But you can see the reason why, the language is Unknown. But Paul uses the word, “divers tongues” and one of the meanings is “diversity” and the scripture clearly tells us, that, “no man can understand him” speaking of Unknown Tongues. That is why that God also gave the Gift of Interpretation. And Paul says, if you have the Gift of Unknown Tongues, pray for the Gift of Interpretation.
The word for divers----genos

English Words used in KJV:
kind 5
kindred 3
offspring 3
nation 2
stock 2
born 2
diversity 1
misc. 3
[Total Count: 21]
..
from <G1096> (ginomai); “kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, indivual or collective) :- born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

[Pressing-On]

Pressing-on wrote,



Right! Tongues is the same, but the words proceeding them makes the difference.

The word proceeding Other Tongues, “Other”---heteros
Usage Notes:
..
English Words used in KJV:
another 43
other 42
other thing 3
some 2
next day 2
miscellaneous translations 7
[Total Count: 99]
..
of uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different :- altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.

And we know Other Tongues is Foreign Languages, because the Jews, that were there from different countries, understood what was being said.

In 1 Cor.14, the word Unknown was added by the translators. But you can see the reason why, the language is Unknown. But Paul uses the word, “divers tongues” and one of the meanings is “diversity” and the scripture clearly tells us, that, “no man can understand him” speaking of Unknown Tongues. That is why that God also gave the Gift of Interpretation. And Paul says, if you have the Gift of Unknown Tongues, pray for the Gift of Interpretation.
The word for divers----genos

English Words used in KJV:
kind 5
kindred 3
offspring 3
nation 2
stock 2
born 2
diversity 1
misc. 3
[Total Count: 21]
..
from <G1096> (ginomai); “kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, indivual or collective) :- born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

I don't believe there is a difference between "other" and "unknown". I base that on the fact that in Acts 2:4-8, the languages being spoken were languages "unknown" to the speakers.

[Jack Shephard]

I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. What does tongues have to do with wiping people out?

I will have to get back to you on this. I was in the middle of a discussion with a friend so it was on my mind and I posted those comments without thinking them through.

[Jack Shephard]

I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. What does tongues have to do with wiping people out?

However, what I will say is that when the bible states tongues are a sign to the unbeliever we tend to think of it in a "present day/now" type of thing, but I don't think that is the correct way to view it. The bible was written to a certain people, not us. There are prophecies about the tongues that were pretty specific to the people of that day and I believe that the "sign to the unbeliever" was about God's return. I am almost a preterist in my mindset on it. The bible seems to be clear in many areas regarding what partial prets and what full prets believe. With that being the case, if God came back in A.D. 70 then tongues, as a sign to the unbeliever, would have been for THAT time and not specifically for today. That doesn't mean it can't happen now because we know it does. But that means it may not be anything more than a personal prayer language. Just some thoughts.

[Pressing-On]

However, what I will say is that when the bible states tongues are a sign to the unbeliever we tend to think of it in a "present day/now" type of thing, but I don't think that is the correct way to view it. The bible was written to a certain people, not us. There are prophecies about the tongues that were pretty specific to the people of that day and I believe that the "sign to the unbeliever" was about God's return. I am almost a preterist in my mindset on it. The bible seems to be clear in many areas regarding what partial prets and what full prets believe. With that being the case, if God came back in A.D. 70 then tongues, as a sign to the unbeliever, would have been for THAT time and not specifically for today. That doesn't mean it can't happen now because we know it does. But that means it may not be anything more than a personal prayer language. Just some thoughts.
I believe it is error to deny the current validity of tongues by relegating its relevance to the apostolic age.

Paul states that "tongues will cease" and that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" - I Cor 13:8-10.

However, Paul also writes that "knowledge will pass away" - I Cor 13:8.

Yet, no one ever insists that knowledge was valid only for the apostolic age.

[Jack Shephard]

I believe it is error to deny the current validity of tongues by relegating its relevance to the apostolic age.

Paul states that "tongues will cease" and that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" - I Cor 13:8-10.

However, Paul also writes that "knowledge will pass away" - I Cor 13:8.

Yet, no one ever insists that knowledge was valid only for the apostolic age.

I am not saying they are totally invalide, but I don't think they serve the same purpose today as they did "current day." If one believes in preterism then what you wrote about what Paul wrote then "that which is perfect is come" came in A.D. 70 and tongues do not serve the same purpose. Whether one believes preterism or not I don't think Bible is clear about tongues being anything related to being part of salvation, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

I am not saying they are totally invalide, but I don't think they serve the same purpose today as they did "current day." If one believes in preterism then what you wrote about what Paul wrote then "that which is perfect is come" came in A.D. 70 and tongues do not serve the same purpose. Whether one believes preterism or not I don't think Bible is clear about tongues being anything related to being part of salvation, IMO.

Well, since people are still receiving the Holy Ghost and the operation of the gifts are still taking place, God would have to have, Himself, ended all of it. Guess that means I could never be a Preterist. :heeheehee

It seems clear that tongues is part of salvation. You can see that, clearly, in Acts 10:44-47. Paul was questioned by the elders of Jerusalem, shortly thereafter, about what happened at Cornelius' house.

His defense was built upon the very evidence that they had spoken in tongues.

[Jack Shephard]

Well, since people are still receiving the Holy Ghost and the operation of the gifts are still taking place, God would have to have, Himself, ended all of it. Guess that means I could never be a Preterist. :heeheehee

It seems clear that tongues is part of salvation. You can see that, clearly, in Acts 10:44-47. Paul was questioned by the elders of Jerusalem, shortly thereafter, about what happened at Cornelius' house.

His defense was built upon the very evidence that they had spoken in tongues.

That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship.

[Pressing-On]

That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship.

I don't believe anyone I know teaches that salvation is "just" an outpouring of tongues.

Look at verse 43 and put into context that this is the beginning of the New Covenant. How does verse 43 begin?

"To him give all the prophets witness..."

Having read that, let's go back to and read the verses in Acts 10:34-42. He ends his discourse with verse 43 after laying a foundation. And guess what happened?

(44) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."

Now that is power and these are true and honest hearts receiving the Word of God.

Verse 47 states they were baptized.

Of course, at the beginning of the chapter, it states that Cornelius and his house feared God and gave much to those in need. Therefore, we have a household guided by a man who believed in repentance and in "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.".

So, there is your Gospel - signed, sealed and delivered.

Oh, snap, it's Acts 2:38 again! :heeheehee

[Jack Shephard]

I don't believe anyone I know teaches that salvation is "just" an outpouring of tongues.

Look at verse 43 and put into context that this is the beginning of the New Covenant. How does verse 43 begin?

"To him give all the prophets witness..."

Having read that, let's go back to and read the verses in Acts 10:34-42. He ends his discourse with verse 43 after laying a foundation. And guess what happened?

(44) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."

Now that is power and these are true and honest hearts receiving the Word of God.

Verse 47 states they were baptized.

Of course, at the beginning of the chapter, it states that Cornelius and his house feared God and gave much to those in need. Therefore, we have a household guided by a man who believed in repentance and in "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.".

So, there is your Gospel - signed, sealed and delivered.

Oh, snap, it's Acts 2:38 again! :heeheehee

I wasn't meaning that tongues meant salvation to you, but I believe that most OP's believe the initial evidence thing so they equate tongues as being a sign of salvation.

His foundation ended with his call to salvation, verse 43. Verse 45 shows that Gentiles were astonished because of what they heard. They heard something familiar coming from an unfamiliar source, Gentiles. That still doesn't give a clear picture that the HG was salvation, but 43 saying whosoever believeth in him shall hall receive remission of sins - that is pretty clear there.

I am not sure if your last statement means that you believe Acts 2:38 is the Gospel or not.

[renee819]

Jack wrote,
That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship.

Back to Pressing-on's example, which is a very good example. The whole of Acts 10 and 11 is all about salvation.

The angel told Cornelius to send for Paul, for what purpose?

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Until a person is 'born again' by repenting, being baptized in Jesus name, and receives the Holy Ghost, they do not have the “life” in them, which is the 'divine nature.”

Cornelius was a very good man, he would put a lot of Christians to shame, but he was not born again. The angel didn't tell him to send for Peter so that a group of people could experience the "outpouring of tongues. But that a group could be saved the very same way that "those that believe as the scriptures has said, " are being saved today.

[Pressing-On]

I wasn't meaning that tongues meant salvation to you, but I believe that most OP's believe the initial evidence thing so they equate tongues as being a sign of salvation.

His foundation ended with his call to salvation, verse 43. Verse 45 shows that Gentiles were astonished because of what they heard. They heard something familiar coming from an unfamiliar source, Gentiles. That still doesn't give a clear picture that the HG was salvation, but 43 saying whosoever believeth in him shall hall receive remission of sins - that is pretty clear there.

I am not sure if your last statement means that you believe Acts 2:38 is the Gospel or not.

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.

[Pressing-On]

Jack wrote,
.

Back to Pressing-on's example, which is a very good example. The whole of Acts 10 and 11 is all about salvation.

The angel told Cornelius to send for Paul, for what purpose?



Until a person is 'born again' by repenting, being baptized in Jesus name, and receives the Holy Ghost, they do not have the “life” in them, which is the 'divine nature.”

Cornelius was a very good man, he would put a lot of Christians to shame, but he was not born again. The angel didn't tell him to send for Peter so that a group of people could experience the "outpouring of tongues. But that a group could be saved the very same way that "those that believe as the scriptures has said, " are being saved today.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

[houston]

Funny how PO is trying to make II Thes 1:8 fit with Gal 1:18.

Let's ignore the CONTEXT of Acts 10 where evidence of tongues was a sign to Peter confirming the vision to eat the unclean animals, signifying that God was going to save Gentiles. No, CONTEXT means nothing.

[Pressing-On]

Funny how PO is trying to make II Thes 1:8 fit with Gal 1:18.

Let's ignore the CONTEXT of Acts 10 where evidence of tongues was a sign to Peter confirming the vision to eat the unclean animals, signifying that God was going to save Gentiles. No, CONTEXT means nothing.

Why would you want to overlook that what Peter preached in Acts 2 was evident in Acts 10? Why would you want to overlook that Peter and those with him, "of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues,"

Why is the confirmation of the vision the only thing you can see here? I can see both. Did you think that Peter was wasting his breath in Acts 2?

And what do you think Paul and Peter talked about for 15 days? Do you think that Peter ever related the events in the upper room to Paul during that 15 day period?

[houston]

Why would you want to overlook that what Peter preached in Acts 2 was evident in Acts 10? Why would you want to overlook that Peter and those with him, "of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues,"

Why is the confirmation of the vision the only thing you can see here? I can see both. Did you think that Peter was wasting his breath in Acts 2?

And what do you think Paul and Peter talked about for 15 days? Do you think that Peter ever related the events in the upper room to Paul during that 15 day period?JEWS were ASTONISHED because GENTILES were getting saved. Tongues was a sign to the UNBELIEVING Jews. They were no longer the cream of the crop and God confirmed it to them.

THAT is why there was the evidence of tongues. Do I need to draw a picture in crayola's for you?

What Peter and Paul discussed is not relevant as it is not recorded in scripture.

[Pressing-On]

JEWS were ASTONISHED because GENTILES were getting saved. Tongues was a sign to the UNBELIEVING Jews. They were no longer the cream of the crop and God confirmed it to them.

THAT is why there was the evidence of tongues. Do I need to draw a picture in crayola's for you?

What Peter and Paul discussed is not relevant as it is not recorded in scripture.
Yes, please draw a crayola picture. I have no idea what it would look like and I want to see it! :heeheehee

Well, I am glad you realized that the Gentiles were getting saved. What if they had not spoken in tongues at all? Would the Jews have realized they were being saved?

What was tongues a sign for concerning the Jews in the upper room on the day of Pentecost?

Here, I finished a drawing of you. I put it on your shirt. You don't have to thank me. :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XcuY9pA2NeA/UaAKl92JFJI/AAAAAAAAFoE/G_477vxOJJw/s640/028.JPG

[houston]

There are no "what if's." Please stick to the text.

[Pressing-On]

There are no "what if's." Please stick to the text.
So, you can't or won't answer the question.

You could at least answer my third question. That is sticking to the text.

Okay, where is my crayola drawing?

[RandyWayne]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XcuY9pA2NeA/UaAKl92JFJI/AAAAAAAAFoE/G_477vxOJJw/s640/028.JPG

I looked at your crayola art and simply had to do something to it. I saved the pic, ran some of my Photoshop magic using a few proprietary plug ins and. . . .








Here ya go!


http://t.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/fantasy/t490/fantasy-warrior_55940.jpg

[Pressing-On]

I looked at your crayola art and simply had to do something to it. I saved the pic, ran some of my Photoshop magic using a few proprietary plug ins and. . . .

Here ya go!


http://t.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/fantasy/t490/fantasy-warrior_55940.jpg
I can see I need a little practice. Might have to get into watercolor pencils.

:toofunny :thumbsup

Hey, he's a girl?! :heeheehee

[RandyWayne]

I can see I need a little practice. Might have to get into watercolor pencils.

:toofunny :thumbsup

Hey, he's a girl?! :heeheehee

That surprised me too!

[Pressing-On]

That surprised me too!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha!

[Jason B]

Well, since people are still receiving the Holy Ghost and the operation of the gifts are still taking place, God would have to have, Himself, ended all of it. Guess that means I could never be a Preterist. :heeheehee

It seems clear that tongues is part of salvation. You can see that, clearly, in Acts 10:44-47. Paul was questioned by the elders of Jerusalem, shortly thereafter, about what happened at Cornelius' house.

His defense was built upon the very evidence that they had spoken in tongues.

PO if tongues are a part of salvation was essentially no one saved in your opinion from the 2nd (or 3rd) century through the 19th?

[Pressing-On]

PO if tongues are a part of salvation was essentially no one saved in your opinion from the 2nd (or 3rd) century through the 19th?

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God - the eternal Word.

Therefore, I believe Isaish 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Someone is always being or going to be saved, even in the 2nd or 3rd century through the 19th.

[Jason B]

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God - the eternal Word.

Therefore, I believe Isaish 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Someone is always being or going to be saved, even in the 2nd or 3rd century through the 19th.

Nice deflection. Quite political of you. Kind of Romneyesque.

[Pressing-On]

Nice deflection. Quite political of you. Kind of Romneyesque.

LOL! Well, let's look at John the Baptist. He died before Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. He and others had to believe the same as Cornelius' household - "To him give all the prophets witness...".

I believe their salvation was only possible because of the certainty of Jesus' sacrifice. Galatians 3:8

Let me further add that any Jew or Gentile (because there were some Gentiles who believed in and followed the Jewish faith) who continued to be in Covenant with God under the Law, not yet hearing or understanding anything about Jesus' Christ, would be saved as well. IOW, if Cornelius had died before Jesus was crucified, I believe he would have been saved.

[renee819]

Jason wrote,
PO if tongues are a part of salvation was essentially no one saved in your opinion from the 2nd (or 3rd) century through the 19th?

Jason, I believe that is what the Great White Throne of Judgment is for.

Those that are born again, as Peter told us in Acts 2:38, will rise at The First Resurrection. All others, will come up at the GWT.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him (The Holy Ghost) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Those that BELIEVE in Jesus, are BELIEVERS. But until they receive the Holy Ghost, they are not 'born again.' The Spirit of God, which is the Holy Ghost does not DWELL in them.
The Samatitians were Believers, until Peter prayed for them.
The Ephesians in Acts 19, were Believers, until Paul baptized them in Jesus name and they received the Holy Ghost.

I believe that we have a nation of Believers, that need to be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost. And it is a shame that we have thousands of Pentecostal and Apostolic Churches, that are majoring on the minor things, like hair and clothing. Building Temples with peoples tithes. And living like Kings over a little Kingdom or if not dictators, then running their church as a business and a movie theater. I mean by that performers, usually paid performers on stage, while the saints become spectators.

It is my opinion that God is leaving the churches, but is stirring up individuals.

[Pressing-On]

Jason wrote,


Jason, I believe that is what the Great White Throne of Judgment is for.

Those that are born again, as Peter told us in Acts 2:38, will rise at The First Resurrection. All others, will come up at the GWT.

.

Those that BELIEVE in Jesus, are BELIEVERS. But until they receive the Holy Ghost, they are not 'born again.' The Spirit of God, which is the Holy Ghost does not DWELL in them.
The Samaritans were Believers, until Peter prayed for them.
The Ephesians in Acts 19, were Believers, until Paul baptized them in Jesus name and they received the Holy Ghost.

I believe that we have a nation of Believers, that need to be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost. And it is a shame that we have thousands of Pentecostal and Apostolic Churches, that are majoring on the minor things, like hair and clothing. Building Temples with peoples tithes. And living like Kings over a little Kingdom or if not dictators, then running their church as a business and a movie theater. I mean by that performers, usually paid performers on stage, while the saints become spectators.

It is my opinion that God is leaving the churches, but is stirring up individuals.

Have to agree with this! :thumbsup

[Jason B]

Jason wrote,

Jason, I believe that is what the Great White Throne of Judgment is for.

Those that are born again, as Peter told us in Acts 2:38, will rise at The First Resurrection. All others, will come up at the GWT.

.

Those that BELIEVE in Jesus, are BELIEVERS. But until they receive the Holy Ghost, they are not 'born again.' The Spirit of God, which is the Holy Ghost does not DWELL in them.
The Samatitians were Believers, until Peter prayed for them.
The Ephesians in Acts 19, were Believers, until Paul baptized them in Jesus name and they received the Holy Ghost.

I believe that we have a nation of Believers, that need to be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost. And it is a shame that we have thousands of Pentecostal and Apostolic Churches, that are majoring on the minor things, like hair and clothing. Building Temples with peoples tithes. And living like Kings over a little Kingdom or if not dictators, then running their church as a business and a movie theater. I mean by that performers, usually paid performers on stage, while the saints become spectators.

It is my opinion that God is leaving the churches, but is stirring up individuals.

Renee I don't have a problem with Romans 8:11, nor will you find me in any of my nearly 4,000 posts arguing someone can be saved without the Spirit.

I would argue the Bible does not make a distinction between (genuine) believers and those who are born again, both terms refer to the same people. John 1:12 and Ephesians 1:13-14 equivocate genuine belief as the point of regeneration. Which Paul also teaches earlier in Romans chapter 4. Throughout the ministry of Jesus the emphasis was on belief not Spirit baptism. Jesus certainly spoke of the baptism of the Spirit, but never taught it as something we must "do". The "do" was to BELIEVE then the Spirit was to be a gift for all true believers (cf John 7:37-39).
This does not discard what God did with tongues in Acts or subsequently but does suggest that regeneration can be accomplished apart from speaking in tongues.

Furthermore tongues is never related to any passage explaining salvation in the NT. In particular Believers are told the EVIDENCE of rebirth is love for other believers, love for Christ and obedience to His commands, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and ALL of the tests in 1 John for the genuine believer. None of which suggest (nor explicitly teach) that tongues is necessary for salvation/regeneration.

[Jason B]

I believe that we have a nation of Believers,

I disagree with this. I think we have a nation of the uncommitted who "follow" Jesus for the fishes and the loaves. The only reason many haven't turned back is because most of the preachers don't preach real commitment, self denial, REPENTANCE, and so these masses have never had to deal with a "hard saying" and ask "who can hear it?". Hence we have churches full of unconverted people not because they don't speak in tongues but because they don't truly believe and haven't repented of their sins.

[renee819]

Renee I don't have a problem with Romans 8:11, nor will you find me in any of my nearly 4,000 posts arguing someone can be saved without the Spirit.

I would argue the Bible does not make a distinction between (genuine) believers and those who are born again, both terms refer to the same people. John 1:12 and Ephesians 1:13-14 equivocate genuine belief as the point of regeneration. Which Paul also teaches earlier in Romans chapter 4. Throughout the ministry of Jesus the emphasis was on belief not Spirit baptism. Jesus certainly spoke of the baptism of the Spirit, but never taught it as something we must "do". The "do" was to BELIEVE then the Spirit was to be a gift for all true believers (cf John 7:37-39).
This does not discard what God did with tongues in Acts or subsequently but does suggest that regeneration can be accomplished apart from speaking in tongues.

Furthermore tongues is never related to any passage explaining salvation in the NT. In particular Believers are told the EVIDENCE of rebirth is love for other believers, love for Christ and obedience to His commands, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and ALL of the tests in 1 John for the genuine believer. None of which suggest (nor explicitly teach) that tongues is necessary for salvation/regeneration.

Jason, with your permission, I'd like to take what you have written here and start a new Thread on the different forms of Salvation.

It may be this evening before I can get to it.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819 View Post
I believe that we have a nation of Believers,

Jason wrote,
I disagree with this. I think we have a nation of the uncommitted who "follow" Jesus for the fishes and the loaves. The only reason many haven't turned back is because most of the preachers don't preach real commitment, self denial, REPENTANCE, and so these masses have never had to deal with a "hard saying" and ask "who can hear it?". Hence we have churches full of unconverted people not because they don't speak in tongues but because they don't truly believe and haven't repented of their sins.

Yes I agree with this. What I should have said is, We have a nation of people that call themselves Believers.

[Pressing-On]

Renee I don't have a problem with Romans 8:11, nor will you find me in any of my nearly 4,000 posts arguing someone can be saved without the Spirit.

I would argue the Bible does not make a distinction between (genuine) believers and those who are born again, both terms refer to the same people. John 1:12 and Ephesians 1:13-14 equivocate genuine belief as the point of regeneration. Which Paul also teaches earlier in Romans chapter 4. Throughout the ministry of Jesus the emphasis was on belief not Spirit baptism. Jesus certainly spoke of the baptism of the Spirit, but never taught it as something we must "do". The "do" was to BELIEVE then the Spirit was to be a gift for all true believers (cf John 7:37-39).
This does not discard what God did with tongues in Acts or subsequently but does suggest that regeneration can be accomplished apart from speaking in tongues.

Furthermore tongues is never related to any passage explaining salvation in the NT. In particular Believers are told the EVIDENCE of rebirth is love for other believers, love for Christ and obedience to His commands, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and ALL of the tests in 1 John for the genuine believer. None of which suggest (nor explicitly teach) that tongues is necessary for salvation/regeneration.

Jason, You cite these scriptures focusing on genuine belief as the main point. When I read Ephesians 1:13-14; John 1:12; John 7:37 and Romans 8:11, I see both genuine belief and the importance and emphasis placed upon receiving the Spirit.

When I read, Romans 5:5, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.", I know I am able, through the Spirit, to bring forth evidence of love for others, love for Christ, obedience to His commands, bear the fruit of the Spirit and ALL of the tests in I John 1 as a genuine believer.

How do I know I can accomplish this? Because I have read and understand Galatians 3:2-3 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

There is just as much evidence in scripture that genuine belief is as important and as much a focus, you can't begin to go anywhere without it, as the necessity of being Spirit filled.

I conclude that Believers and those who are born again are interchangeable terms as much as I believe Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are speaking of one and the same. If I didn't believe that, I might as well head back to the Baptist Church.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by renee819 View Post


Jason wrote,
.

Yes I agree with this. What I should have said is, We have a nation of people that call themselves Believers.

This is exactly how I interpreted what you originally posted. Yes, a nation of people who call themselves Believers. :thumbsup

[Jason B]

Jason, with your permission, I'd like to take what you have written here and start a new Thread on the different forms of Salvation.

It may be this evening before I can get to it.

Absolutely

[Jason B]

Jason, You cite these scriptures focusing on genuine belief as the main point. When I read Ephesians 1:13-14; John 1:12; John 7:37 and Romans 8:11, I see both genuine belief and the importance and emphasis placed upon receiving the Spirit.

There is just as much evidence in scripture that genuine belief is as important and as much a focus, you can't begin to go anywhere without it, as the necessity of being Spirit filled.

I conclude that Believers and those who are born again are interchangeable terms as much as I believe Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are speaking of one and the same.

I agree with ALL of this.

I think the confusion comes about because pentecostals have a hard time distinguishing the Sprit and tongues, due to their soteriology and initial evidence doctrine. Thus anyone who doesn't believe in the necessity of speaking in tongues is assumed to believe that someone can be saved without the Spirit of God, which is simply not the case. (At least in my case).

[Jason B]

Yes I agree with this. What I should have said is, We have a nation of people that call themselves Believers.

So then my point is, Christianity isn't a mess because millions of Christians don't speak in tongues, its a mess because most (I say 80% at least) of the "believers" are actually "non-believers". Amongst the remnant there are people who have never spoken in tongues who are every bit as committed to Christ as any apostolic and who would be willing to give their lives for Him. In fact many of the martyrs in foreign countries giving their lives for Jesus are not pentecostals. That is not to say martyrdom = salvation, but simply to point out there are those who have so committed their lives to Christ, experienced His grace and power to save, and ARE willing to take up their cross and lay down their lives for Him, even though they haven't spoken in tongues, I find it hard to say they can't be saved because they haven't spoken in tongues.

And that's not an emotional argument, it is an giving some examples to back up point about scripture. Particularly genuine belief and repentance is necessary to be saved not tongues. God gives His Spirit to those who genuinely believe/repent.

[Pressing-On]

I agree with ALL of this.

I think the confusion comes about because pentecostals have a hard time distinguishing the Spirit and tongues, due to their soteriology and initial evidence doctrine. Thus anyone who doesn't believe in the necessity of speaking in tongues is assumed to believe that someone can be saved without the Spirit of God, which is simply not the case. (At least in my case).

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

Jesus began that discourse promising the Comforter would come after His Resurrection. He identifies the Comforter as the Holy Ghost - John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost..."

Jesus says that we will have "power" after the Holy Ghost has come - Acts 1:8 "But you shall receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon you."

And we know what happened in the Upper Room - Acts 2:4.

Paul says that we will be filled with joy and peace, abounding in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost - Romans 15:13

If anyone is to blame for putting the "initial evidence" monkey on our backs, you can blame Jesus to begin with. He is the one that brought it up first. :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

So then my point is, Christianity isn't a mess because millions of Christians don't speak in tongues, its a mess because most (I say 80% at least) of the "believers" are actually "non-believers". Amongst the remnant there are people who have never spoken in tongues who are every bit as committed to Christ as any apostolic and who would be willing to give their lives for Him. In fact many of the martyrs in foreign countries giving their lives for Jesus are not pentecostals. That is not to say martyrdom = salvation, but simply to point out there are those who have so committed their lives to Christ, experienced His grace and power to save, and ARE willing to take up their cross and lay down their lives for Him, even though they haven't spoken in tongues, I find it hard to say they can't be saved because they haven't spoken in tongues.

And that's not an emotional argument, it is an giving some examples to back up point about scripture. Particularly genuine belief and repentance is necessary to be saved not tongues. God gives His Spirit to those who genuinely believe/repent.

Cornelius was all of that characterization. Yet, God seeing him seeking and hungering for righteousness brought him more.

I've talked to really, really good, decent and nice people who, if you take the conversation away from their salvational issues, aren't as nice when challenged even in the most respectful way.

IMO, it is not always easy to distinguish between a Cornelius and a rich young ruler type character or person.

All I can do is stand in the place where God found me and stay in the place where He leads me.

We talk a lot here, naturally, on these subjects, but I rarely do that in real life. My main point of discussion focuses on faith and prayer - mainly answered prayers. I've seen people have a lot of trust in God from shared stories regarding prayer. That's a witnessing tool for me.

[Jack Shephard]

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....

[houston]

JS,

Peter MUST have told Paul about Acts 2!!!

[Jason B]

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.

[Real Realism]

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?

[Pressing-On]

"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.

[houston]

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

You are a racist!

[Pressing-On]

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?

[houston]

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)

[Pressing-On]

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. :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

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?

[mizpeh]

Real Realism, if a person believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of someone receiving the Holy Spirit and that everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues then in 1Cor 12 "do all speak with tongues?" (with the implied "NO" as the answer) must mean that the 'gift of tongues' is not the same thing as the evidence of tongues. Meaning when anyone receives the Spirit, they will speak in tongues but that they will not necessarily speak again in tongues after that initial experience.

Not only is Acts 8 problematic for those who believe that everyone receives the Spirit at faith but so is the record of the Spirit baptism of Saul/Paul and the Spirit baptism fo the disciples at Ephesus.

[Pressing-On]

Real Realism, if a person believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of someone receiving the Holy Spirit and that everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues then in 1Cor 12 "do all speak with tongues?" (with the implied "NO" as the answer) must mean that the 'gift of tongues' is not the same thing as the evidence of tongues. Meaning when anyone receives the Spirit, they will speak in tongues but that they will not necessarily speak again in tongues after that initial experience.

Not only is Acts 8 problematic for those who believe that everyone receives the Spirit at faith but so is the record of the Spirit baptism of Saul/Paul and the Spirit baptism fo the disciples at Ephesus.

Good post, Mizpeh! :thumbsup

[renee819]

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?

Good points, Real, there are many scriptures that just can not be ignored.

[renee819]

Pressing-on wrote
The evidence of the Spirit was and is tongues. I don't see the confusion there.
Jason wrote,
"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, You probably know this, but history teaches, that the early Church, for at least 100 yrs. closer to 200 yrs. (used house churches -----to be commented on later) Baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came.

Then we had some Philosophers join the Church, Men schooled in Paganism. And every Pagan Doctrine, that I have read anything about,(going back to Nimrod,) has a father, mother (Queen of heaven) and a son. Three gods. That was the beginning of real heresy in the Church.

In William B Chalfant's book, “Ancient Champions of Oneness” he writes,...

The earliest possible trinitarian writer, who used a trinitarian-type Logos doctrine, was Quadratus ad 117-25. he was a Greek Philosopher. He said, “Let gnosis be in your heart” This language certainly sounds like there is a connection between the early heresy known as Gnosticism and the beginnings of the Trinitarian Logos teaching. He taught that the Logos was the preexistent Son, planning the creation together with the Father.

“The small group of apologists whose writings have been permitted to survive were all teachers of the Logos Doctrine that was later used to support trinitarianism, namely that the Logos (Word) was a second person.”

Justin Martyr, converted in ad133,
“The apologists of the second century believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It appears also that they continued to preach the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But they held a different position on the Godhead. Jesus Christ was in the second place: “Jesus Christ ….we reasonably worship Him, having learned He is the Son of the True God, Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third”

Valentinus ad 140, a Platontic Christian philosopher, like Justin, it was his goal, with his elaborate Christian Gnostic system, to harmonize Pagan philosophy with Christian doctrine.

In the second century it was common throughout the empire for Christians to believe in the gifts of the Spirit.....and the baptism of the Holy Spirit,...prophetic gifts and “spoke all kinds of tongues.:

There were a lot of others with the same goal. Back and forth arguments on both sides, until Constantine. For Political reasons, not because he was a Christian He was a sun Worshipper all of his life, until on his death bed, he requested to be baptized

Constantine closed the Pagan Temples (I read) and gave them to the followers of Jesus. With a price. And what a price, ( “Come out of her my people”---and we are not out yet.) They had to baptize in the Trinity, he set up the hierarchy of the church, Clergy and Laymen, and married Christianity with Paganism.

Chalfant wrote, “Confirmation meant that the Catholic priest placed his hands upon the supplicant's head who was then said to have automatically received the Holy Ghost.”
Constantine backed this up by degreeing that congregations who would not go along with this decision would lose their property and their civil rights.”

Later they lost their lives. There were many martyrs for the name of Jesus. They didn't care how much they talked in tongues, but they had to be baptized in the Trinity, because that was a Catholic hallmark.
.
Then Martin Luther came along. While I appreciate the fact that he started the Reformation, he also kept many of the Catholic practices and he caused many Martyrs.

And then Calvin, with the truth of baptism by immersion but also many false teachings. The worst thing that I see that he did was to have Servertus arrested and Martyed.

Jason I ask you, can these men be Christians and at the same time causing other Christians to be killed?

The true Church went underground, and after many years no doubt lost the Truth of the Gospel
As we see in History, when a people leaves God, God leaves the people.
God made man to have FREE WILL, therefore God will not force a person to do anything. An I fear today, that God is leaving the churches, but speaking to individuals.

Luther starting the Protestant Reformation, was a step up out of the darkness.
Calvin bringing in baptism by immersion, was a step up.
Then in the early 1900's people began to see that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was a necessary part of salvation---this was another step up.
But it was a few years before some saw that the Apostles baptized in Jesus name, and that is the correct way to baptize. Another step up.

Where will Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, (who was against baptism) come up in judgment? And all of those people that Believed in Jesus, but did not know or did not accept the Full Gospel?

At the Great White Throne of Judgment, to be judged according to their works.

God is Truth. God is Love. God is a Righteous Judge. Therefore we have to leave all of these people in the hands of God. And make sure that we have the Truth, and do the Truth ourselves, in order that we can be in the First Resurrection.

[houston]

If history taught that there would be less of an argument today.

[Pressing-On]

If history taught that there would be less of an argument today.

And when did History trump the Word of God, Homie? You don't recall that Paul spent time in Arabia, not conferring with flesh and blood, and came away with the same truth as Peter? Pretty scary and shortsighted to rely on History when it contradicts the Word on many points.

[renee819]

If history taught that there would be less of an argument today.

Houston, As Pressing -on said, history doesn't trump the Word of God, however, history does prove the Word. And especially when it comes to prophecy.

It would pay for every Christian to study the History of the Early Church. And believe me, that things that I wrote are true. and you can prove it by reading the writings of the men that did the martyring, That caused the Church to go underground.

Calvin made the statement, that, If Servertus entered the city that he would see to it that he would be arrested.
And Servetus came to hear Calvin preach. and sure enough, he had him arrested, and burned at the stake. I used to have an article on this, but changed computers and don't think I have it any more.

[houston]

My comment was to Renee. She claims that 200 years of history affirm her doctrine. Chill out, PO. And don't refer to me as homie.

[Pressing-On]

My comment was to Renee. She claims that 200 years of history affirm her doctrine. Chill out, PO. And don't refer to me as homie.

K, Homie. :doggyrun

[houston]

K, Homie. :doggyrun

Nikka, dun be gettin all ghetto upin hea, yafil meh?