Apostolic Friends Forum - The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=44290)

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 1272213)

Good post, Mizpeh! :thumbsup

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real Realism (Post 1271980)

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Pressing-on wrote

Quote:

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

.
Jason wrote,

Quote:

"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,...

Quote:

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, “

Quote:

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

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

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston (Post 1272384)

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston (Post 1272384)

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

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.

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston (Post 1272416)

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

Re: The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1272420)

K, Homie. :doggyrun

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