[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?

Historical Narrative Example- When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:6).

However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again.

In the book of Numbers, it says:Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (Numbers 20:11).(3)However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear


I believe the benefits and purpose of tongues (i.e. edification, intercession, a gift among many, etc) is clearly taught in the didactic genre by the protagonists in Acts.

That it is a sign to the unbeliever seems to also be ignored by the tongues census takers who use it as a sign to prove belief (see Borat) .... or that Paul and Christ teach on what the fruit of the Spirit truly is ....

Adding to the Word ... however, and making tongues salvific has serious consequences as taught in Scripture, IMO.

DA, I love ya man…….. but this is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen you use.

Whoever the writer is, he/she has (if they are writing this to “debunk” the “initial evidence” doctrine) made a grave hermeneutic (rightly divide the Word) error. The writer would be correct to make such an assertion, if Acts 2 was the only historical narrative where speaking with other tongues as the spirit of God gives the utterance was experienced at the time of “receiving” the spirit. However, we have three separate times (Acts 2, 10, & 19) in which the narrative explicitly describes speaking in tongues at the point of receiving the Spirit, and one which implies it. (Acts 8) In one of these accounts, (Acts 10) those witnessing the event directly identified how they “knew” that the people had “received” the spirit. The Jewish believers[e] who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. (Acts 10:45-46 NLT).

Moses striking the rock was not the "normative" manner of getting water, however, there is nothing in the book of Acts that describes any other manner or initial "sign" of having recieved the spirit than speaking with other tongues, thus it was not only normative it was indeed the precedent.

Using this type of argument is an extreme stretch at best, (which your author admitted) or an outright attempt to wrest the scriptures and mislead people away from truth, at worst.