Quote:
freeatlast;635876]I do not argue that tongues were not a "sign" that God had added some to the church Bro. Luke.
In Acts 10 it waas a sign to the UNbelieving Jews. They would not believe that God would or could save anyone but them. Hence God gave THEM a sign that he had indeed moved intot he lives of these uncircumcised Gentiles.
Same situation in Acts 8. vs 14 ..when the apostles heard that Samaritans ( another hated Gentile cross culture) had believed they were again astonished. they could not believe that God could save such a people.
|
That is not what directly happened in
Acts 8 though. Philip taught and all believed and where baptized. How did they know that they had not received the HS? They expected something!! The model clearly shows expectation outside of simple belief one received the HS. Which Pauls question clearly points to in
Acts 19. That they should know they received it. (which is outside the Jew to Gentile line of
Acts 8 and 10) Paul asks. Did you receive the HS when you believed? Not just accept by faith that they had but know by evidence. He expected a normal response of actually knowing, not blind faith. Otherwise he could not have asked the question if he simply expected them to only have by blind faith acknowledgment. Thus what does he do he asks a question and explains the issue. Then baptizes them. THEN he does not stop BUT LAYS HIS HANDS. HE was still expecting SOMETHING ELSE thus again shows he did not expect reception by blind faith. Also they where more SURPRISED that the HS
had not fallen not that he did, which somehow they had to know(tongues) per sending for PEter and John.
Quote:
|
They sent Peter and John to check out this unbelievable rumor.
|
No they sent John and Peter because they "knew" they had not received the HS because he had not FALLEN. Notive they expected action not just reception by blind faith. Again if blind faith is expected that one has initially received the HS. Then how would they know they had not. Expectation tells all! Also notice simply believed and baptized are put into the equation yet they still knew they had not.
Quote:
|
Again God used this sign that those at the upper room had witnessed.
|
As he does he still does.
Quote:
These events seem in line with Paul's teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14
Paul wrote that "tongues are a sign NOT to believers but to unbelievers"
|
Paul is talking about a different function that is used as a "gift" in the church not about initial evidence. The two are totaly different per my comments below.
Quote:
|
In fact in the only letters that address tongues, in the letters written to the churchs, Paul does not state or even hint that tongues were to be expected as initial evidence that someone had recieved God's spirit. Not once!!
|
Doesn't have to as he is dealing with other issues not issues that people had already been a witness to when they received the HS. Also initial evidence and tongues in the life of the believer are to different things. As Paul's directions would make little sense in Acts. Also tongues in Acts are initiated by God. The tongues in which Pauls talks about are of edification in which one USES a gift God has bestowed in which one initiates by stirring up the gift. The to aspects are totaly different.
Linear Mode
