Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The first scripture verse I was taught in Sunday School as a child was Acts 2:38, and I'm sure it is still the first verse most children of the faith are taught to memorize.

Acts chapter two seems to be the main reference for all things "Holy Ghost" related. When someone asks about tongues or the infilling of the Spirit, we always point them to Acts chapter two - the birth of Pentecostalism. Even Peter, in Acts chapter 11, refered back to the first Holy Ghost experience when defending the Gentiles receiving of the gift. Acts chapter two is the foundation of the Apostolic/Pentecostal faith. And I believe it is also the foundation upon which every other recorded Holy Ghost out-pouring or reference in the Bible stands.

However, everytime I read this passage, or any other similar passage, I always encounter conflicts between what I've been taught is Holy Ghost, and what is recorded in the Word. I'd like to discuss some of these inconsistencies. They may seem small and insignificant, but I'd like to cover them nonetheless, just to be thorough.


1. These are not drunken, as ye suppose - the signs of the out-pouring

I've always been fed that Peter's words meant "These men and women are not drunk in the way you think they are. That somehow what Peter is saying is "These men and women ARE drunk, but not like you think they are. They are drunk on the Spirit!"

This is an error. When the onlookers heard the disciples speaking in tongues, they were amazed, confused (1 Cor. 14:2), doubtful, and some mocked - calling them drunken.

Look at Peter's words:

"...for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day..."

Notice the how the "as ye suppose" is offset by commas. I believe this means, "You suppose these are drunken, but they aren't. It's only the third hour of the day!"

I must disagree with every preacher/evangelist who ever said, "Peter didn't deny they were drunk! He knew they were drunk!" I believe Peter was saying just the opposite.

If I'm right, and this is what Peter was saying, then it leaves a whole lot of explaining for those who embrace our more...modern...signs of the out pouring as "drunkeness," because now they have no firm ground to stand on when trying to explain:

Slain in the Spirit
Slurred Speach
Moaning/Wailing
Sobbing/Screaming and tears
Reeling, running and jumping


I believe I am right, by Peter's next words...Read on in Acts 2


Peter informs them that what is going on (which is, by the way, ONLY speaking in tongues) is the fulfilled prophecy of the out-pouring of God's Spirit. He then lists what the effects of the out-pouring will be:

prophecy
visions
dreams


Why are none of our modern signs recorded in this list? And why are they nowhere to be found in Acts 4, 8, 10, or 19 either when the Holy Ghost was again poured out?

I'm not seeking to rid the church of all emotion. LOL!!!!! Just pondering this.



2. We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Everytime someone recieves the "Holy Ghost" nowadays, they speak in a "heavenly language," just like in Acts 2, right?

Wrong.

In Acts chapter 2 the tongues were not a "heavenly" language. They were earthly languages. We can argue all day about this, but the Word is very clear. What those onlookers heard were the tongues of earth. The substance of those words was heavenly (praise to God) but the words themselves were undeniably earthly.

So, who invented the idea that the intial evidence of recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in a "heavenly" language?



That's all I can think of right now. Maybe more later.


God Bless!

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

1. Peter denied they were drunk on wine, but something made the crowd think they were drunk on wine. I agree with you that it was the tongues. Also, I have never seen any drunk person act anything like those who say they are drunk in the Spirit do, therefore those who claim to be drunk on the Spirit will never be mistaken for being drunk on wine and therefore we can say for certain that even if the 120 were drunk on the Spirit that they did not act like those of today who claim to be drunk on the Spirit.

1b. For Joel's prophecy to have been fulfilled it is reasonable to believe that prophecy did in fact take place on the day of Pentecost and in the other accounts. One can either assume such prophecy took place through the tongues or that such prophecy accompanied the tongues in some way. I lean toward the opinion that prophecy took place in addition to the tongues in each of these accounts. In Acts 2 they spoke the wonderful works of God (in tongues), in Acts 10 they spoke in tongues and magnified God, in Acts 19 they spoke in tongues and prophesied. I believe that speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God, and prophesying all refer to the same thing. What I am saying is that the kind of prophecy that fulfilled the prophecy of Joel is the kind of prophecy that refers to speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. (Just my opinion.)

2. Personally I don't know of anyone that could know whether the tongue s that pentecostals speak are actual earthly languages or not. I lean toward not, but I can't say that for certain.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

There have been reports of people understanding what a person was saying while speaking with tongues because that person who heard it was familiar with the language spoken by the speaker with tongues.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The onlookers accused the 120 of being drunk on wine. Peter said they weren't.

Today, we have a new type of drunkeness, with new effects...of which are NOT recorded in Acts...which place happens to be what the Pentecostals claim as proof of their actions.

When a noob is found in a service and witnesses someone "slain" in the Spirit, he/she asks why. The spirituals tell him that it's just like in Acts 2. When he reads it, he finds that this "slaying" is not even mentioned in Acts 2, or anywhere else in the Bible (I'm referring to reeling backwards or slashing about on the floor uncontrollably or just out cold). Nor is the running, jumping, whooping, wailing, moaning and sobbing...or the $10 ointment cloths either I might add.

I'm not saying that these things are not of God (I have my doubts), however, they are NOT recorded in any of the out-pourings in Acts.

So what's the deal?

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

:popcorn2

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Joelhardy

Good points many don't want to hear these things. It defeats thier long built up doctrines, based on the traditions of man and not the word of God.

I just want to add a couple of points that occoured to me while reading this post. It has been my understanding that the tongues we speak under the anointing are none other than an earthly language, just one we don't speak. Suffice it to say I don't put as much emphisis on tongues any more.

As for the rest of the emotionalism, there is a place for it. But I have come to find a far deeper relationship with God without the shouting, jumping, running the aisles, etc. Yesterday I spent an hour sharing the love of God with another discouraged christian. The week before I spent an hour encouraging a former Catholic that had lost thier way. When asked do I miss the emotionalism? I get more fulfillment when I share with others the wonderful works of God.

IMHO we have lost the whole bottom line. We are wrapped up in proseliting others to our own denomination and traditions we have forgotten we are to be reconciling the world back to God. Its not all about salvation and staying saved, It is about a personal relationship with God right now.

We are wasting good years we could be in a special relationship with God that we can only enjoy in this life.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Yep! It seems like our learning is left up to us individually. Cuz I wasn't taught this stuff at an early age. I was just taught to be a good kid and "yeild to the Spirit" duing church services...and when I hadn't had an emotional moment in a while, publicly that is, it was time for a visit to a good ol' fashioned alter.

I don't mean to downplay emotions in church, but it seems like everyone nowadays comes FOR the emotional times. One lady jirates, screams, and stomps at least once in every service...I'm not kidding! Every service!

See, that may be of God, but I found no record of someone jirating and screaming when the presence of God came over them in Acts. Yeah, David danced, but he's the only one anyone ever refers back too. None of that took place in Acts...at least it's not recorded.

I'm not against dancing...not at all...its an expression of joy...but dont call it "dancing in the Spirit"...or make people believe that this is what happens when the Holy Ghost falls...because it's not recorded as happening even once in any of the Holy Ghost accounts in Acts.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

True tithing is actually soul winning and giving that soul back to God.
Types and shadows, the feast of the first fruits.

Mark 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.
30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?

Proverbs 3:9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


John 4:35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

God gives the increase:

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

It's all about preaching, teaching, and soul winning.

2 Corinthians 9:9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness)

Just another day in the Kingdom..

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

If this is the reason for coming to church, you leave just the same as you came. There is no progression in faith or milk to meat maturity.

That being said, emotionalism or "feeling" is certainly apart of a response. We can mock it or make light of it, however, a fleshly response to His spirit is not abnormal. We can categorize such as outlandish or "there is nothing spiritual about that!"

You mentioned David and I think its important to point out that the Bible never says that David danced "in the spirit." It says he danced before the Lord. What was this dancing? Again, I say it is a fleshly (emotional) response to a spiritual occurrence. In fact, in Psalms 149 and 150 tells us "praise his name in the dance" and "Praise him with the timbrel and dance."

I am not sure you can correlate the new birth experience, the display of tongues and the absence of the mention of dancing to say that we should not because it is not mention side by side with it. If you really think about it, repentance is a fleshly response to a spiritual dealing with our heart and soul. It takes an active response (either physically coming to an altar or making a choice in our minds) to repent.

Needless to say, I do believe there are actions of the flesh that are used in praise and worship. Do I believe a man can exercise his praise through running the aisles? Sure. Do I believe it is done "in the spirit?" No. "Do I believe it can be done in spirit-mindedness? Absolutely!