Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

How many of the folks who "speak in tongues" in Pentecostal churches actually speak in a "language" and how many have had their chins wiggled and how many have been shaken so their words come out garbled, and how many have been told to keep repeating certain words or sounds until they get their tongue tangled up and gibberish comes out? How honest are we in facing this? There was a recent post about Bro. Joe Duke and how many received the Holy Ghost Baptism in his ministry but some who were there were honest enough to admit he had folks repeat "nonsense syllables" until they came out jumbled enough to be called "tongues."

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Ok. fine. Thanks for clarifying.

But I think you and Keith are talking about 2 different things.

Keith said:

"Regarding Op's Vinson Synan, the leading Scholar who studies all Pentecostal Denominiations, Movements and Streams currently reports that Oneness Pentecostals have the highest percentage of people who claim the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the intial evidence doctrine.Upwards of 90%. So there is some credible scholarship and stats for this percentage."

He was talking about OP's who've received the initial baptism of the Spirit with accompanying tongues, not necessarily those who speak with tongues on a regular basis.

I think many/most of us have witnessed people clearly speaking in tongues when they got filled with the Holy Ghost... and some of them have rarely spoken in tongues afterward, while some others pray in tongues daily.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Sam, have you considered that maybe not all 500 of those people were in the upper room with the others on the Day of Pentecost?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I know My Wife and I both speak in languages so does my Kids None of us recieved the Holy Ghost in a Church setting We all Recieved at Home.I have seen what you are talking about and am disgusted by it.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

There were about 120 associated with the upper room according to Acts 1:13-15

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Yes, so based on that, the other 380 did not receive it when the initial 120 did.

But we cant come up with a figure that 24% of them received the Holy Ghost, because we dont know if/when the other 380 received it. We know that many thousands received it shortly after the first group did, not just on the day of Pentecost , but afterward also.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

The emphasis on only going to the Book of Acts and avoiding the Gospels and/or Epistles is based on teaching which is illustrated by this chart which is similar to what Bro. S.G. Norris used at the Apostolic Bible Institute

http://home.att.net/~jrd/gospelsactsepistles.gif

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Sorry

I know you like to study, so I thought that you might have read it also.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

No problem.

I'll take that as a compliment, but I actually don't think study as much as I should.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Dan is back with his same ole anti-Pentecostal junk. He never stops.
How is this The Church was born is Acts thus the history of the Original Church?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

What was the question again?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

:yo

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Interesting. Can I ask how it is that you know this?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Are you really serious with this question?
:blink

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

If I am reading this correctly, only twelve PEOPLE received the Holy Spirit in the AG org in 2007.

Go to page 2.

http://www.ag.org/top/About/Statisti...rt_Summary.pdf

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I read that wrong. Ha. Had to magnify it.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Their average church had 12 spirit baptisms in 2007. My bad...

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

That was twelve more than I thought.:couch

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

LoL

Elder, before I moved out to Texas, I visited an AoG with my aunt.
She's very into "Non Denominational" churches.
And that's what it was... a non denominational church.
Everything was timed so perfectly. The message was very brief.
They have to get em out as soon as they get em in. 3 services
on Sunday morning. Nothing wrong with a big church, mind you.
There was no speaking in tongues that I was aware of. If it wasn't
for the marquee, I would have thought I was at Lakewood in Houston. :)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Any thoughts on Gordon Fee ... Elder Epley?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

:hook

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Very interesting chart.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Yes. Perhaps I am misunderstanding iceniez? I thought he was saying they all spoke in known languages...

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Dr. Daniel Segraves was in the particular class where Synan addressed the question.

He was talking about Pentecostals and the initial evidence doctrine and how many in differing Pentecostal groups claim to receive it.

He mentioned all the various groups then had Dr. Daniel Segraves stand up and said to him before the entire class of PhD Scholars, the decline in the experience and teaching is not so with you Oneness Pentecostals and quoted a # to Dr. Segraves, Dr. Segraves said that the number somewhere above 90% was accurate.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

You get what you preach.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I agree with this nice summary, but it seems the common one is tongue speaking, but I won't put God in a box if he chooses some other form of ejaculation (term coined by David Pawson where referring to the phenomenon by which the Spirit expresses itself in a notable way)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

David Pawson needs to un-coin that term.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

And here we go....


The primary def of that word is: an abrupt, exclamatory utterance.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

ROFL :christmasjig

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Dan

Do you write stuff like you wrote to get a response like Bro. Epley's or are you sincerly trying to compart knowledge?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

:spit :girlpopcorn

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

ok.

It seems apparent that you misunderstood him.

He was responding to Sam's post regarding speaking in an actual language vs gibberish or "nonsense syllables". So ICE was saying when he and his family do it, he knows its an actual language, as opposed to gibberish.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

It is a definition of the word; but it's not a primary definition of the word.
If you ask 100 random people to define that word, I hardly think even one of them would give that as the primary definition of the word.

See also:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...aculate%5B1%5D

I agree.
There are so many other words he could have used. He really could have avoided that term. :rolleyes:

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I like the Chronological Bible. It places the Epistles in Historic Perspective as they relate to the Book of Acts.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I agree.
Speaking with tongues is mentioned in Acts 2, 10, and 19.
And it is implied in Acts 8.
I was not denying that.
We seem to have witnesses that there is a post conversion experience in the Spirit that we may give different names (baptism, receiving, filling, falling upon, promise, coming upon, gift) that is usually received through the laying on of hands, and that experience is often accompanied or followed by speaking with other tongues/languages. I think most of us can agree with that.

Can we draw the conclusion that a person has not received that experience if they have not spoken with tongues? Or, can we say that everyone who receives that experience will speak with tongues? Or can we say that a person has not received that experience until he/she has spoken with tongues? We probably have differences of opinion here.

The "initial physical evidence" doctrine is based on three witnesses where Jews and Gentiles spoke with tongues when receiving that experience. To some that is sufficient "proof." For others it is not.

I'm not arguing for or against here.

I speak/pray with tongues just about every day.
I do not judge someone who does not.

P.S. I do not recognize or categorize my "prayer language." I don't know if it is a currently known human language, a language from somewhere in the past, an earthly language, a heavenly language, or what. It is a special, privileged communication between my spirit and my Lord and it builds me up.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

The book of the Acts of the Apostles carries such weight because it is the chronicle of the culmination of all the OT looked unto.

The gospel would be a hollow victory if it had not been acted upon.

The Epistles would be useless if there were no blood bought, Jesus' Name Baptisted, Holy Ghost filled believers to pastor.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Who were you quoting in the opening post?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Obviously this is because the Oneness groups teach that speaking in tongues is part of the new birth. If you teach hell or tongues then I can guarantee you will have folks speaking in tongues just as rapidly as the denominational world has folks being "born again" by saying the sinner's prayer.

I think that the same would be true with Oneness groups stressing baptism more than other groups. You can't even be saved in most Oneness churches unless you speak in tongues and are baptized.

Look at the number of spirit baptisms versus water baptism and the relation to conversions. See page 2.

You have an average of 47 conversions per church.
Of these 47 only 12 speak with tongues which is 25% of converts.
Of these 47 only 14 were water baptized which is 29% of converts.

http://www.ag.org/top/About/Statisti...rt_Summary.pdf

The way I see it the figures aren't comparable at all. Oneness churches don't even count someone as saved until they have been baptized and have spoke in tongues. So naturally, the only people in the church who would be considered not tongue talkers would be those seeking to be saved and maybe small children.

Now, the question I have is how many of those really speak in tongues? We have all seen people who we know didn't speak in tongues and then were proclaimed as having received the Holy Ghost.

Also, if you were to visit one of the "one-stepper" churches that didn't preach tongues or hell then I think it is very possible that the stats would be much lower than 90%?

Dr. Seagraves should have informed all those PhDs that you aren't considered even born again until you speak in tongues in the Oneness organizations. This would directly explain the difference.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

OK, that just flat out scares me. Yes Acts is important but you still have to interpret Acts from other scripture and not the other way around.:groan How is the gospel acted upon? Maybe this would be a good topic for another thread?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

The New Testament is the theory, we ask the questions which create the test, Acts is the answer key - that is, theory put to work, or put to ACTions.