Survey About Doctrinal Beliefs

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

How did you come to that conclusion?

Then the tongues that were understood at Pentecost were also a gift of the Spirit?

Well, yeah, you can't give it to yourself. LOL!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, yeah, you can't give it to yourself. LOL!

You know what I mean.

But to make the stretch that "prophesy" is a sub-set gift of the Spirit just makes me wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

Both tongues and prophecy are listed as gifts of the Spirit (whether publicly or privately).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

You know what I mean.

But to make the stretch that "prophesy" is a sub-set gift of the Spirit just makes me wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

Both tongues and prophecy are listed as gifts of the Spirit (whether publicly or privately).

No theologian will deny that the Book of Acts relates to the events showing the birth of the church. We read Peter identifying that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just like they did because he heard them speak in tongues. (Acts 10:45-46)

We then have instructions written "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (I Cor 1) on how to operate the spiritual gifts.

"divers" is not in the original manuscript, therefore, I would have to read that as "kinds of tongues". It is just a language that isn't naturally acquired. The "kinds" of tongues are followed by interpretation. That shows that they are tied together - "interpretation of tongues". (Acts I Cor 12:10)

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No theologian will deny that the Book of Acts relates to the events showing the birth of the church. We read Peter identifying that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just like they did because he heard them speak in tongues. (Acts 10:45-46)

We then have instructions written "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (I Cor 1) on how to operate the spiritual gifts.

"divers" is not in the original manuscript, therefore, I would have to read that as "kinds of tongues". It is just a language that isn't naturally acquired. The "kinds" of tongues are followed by interpretation. That shows that they are tied together - "interpretation of tongues". (Acts I Cor 12:10)

That doesn't answer how you extract tongues-only, exclusive evidence doctrine from scripture where it is never stated as such. Not once. Nowhere. A central new doctrine by Pentecostals in the 21st Century has no scriptural, didactic validation. We just know when one is Spirit baptized that something spiritual happens. We are witnesses and observers only. Taking the next step, creating doctrine and dogma by which we deny or welcome people to the Body of Christ makes it even more absurd.

Nor does it explain why you don't believe prophecy in the verse in Acts you cited is NOT giving us a sign of Spirit Baptism.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That doesn't answer how you extract tongues-only, exclusive evidence doctrine from scripture where it is never stated as such. Not once. Nowhere. A central new doctrine by Pentecostals in the 21st Century has no scriptural, didactic validation.

Nor does it explain why you don't believe prophecy in the verse in Acts you cited is NOT giving us a sign of Spirit Baptism.

Really? It looked pretty plain to me. I don't know what else to give you, but the same post. The same spirit works all (I Cor 12:4), but we must receive God's Spirit to operate in the Spirit. It's a no-brainer.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Really? It looked pretty plain to me. I don't know what else to give you, but the same post. The same spirit works all (I Cor 12:4), but we must receive God's Spirit to operate in the Spirit. It's a no-brainer.

Wow... if that's plain for you, I don't want to tell you either

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Wow... if that's plain for you, I don't want to tell you either

Do you operate in any of the gifts?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That doesn't answer how you extract tongues-only, exclusive evidence doctrine from scripture where it is never stated as such. Not once. Nowhere. A central new doctrine by Pentecostals in the 21st Century has no scriptural, didactic validation. We just know when one is Spirit baptized that something spiritual happens. We are witnesses and observers only. Taking the next step, creating doctrine and dogma by which we deny or welcome people to the Body of Christ makes it even more absurd.

It appears to me that Peter claimed it as such.

Nor does it explain why you don't believe prophecy in the verse in Acts you cited is NOT giving us a sign of Spirit Baptism.

The verse (Acts 19:6) says that they spake in tongues and prophesied. That means that they received, IMO, the Holy Ghost and began to, immediately, operate in the Spirit.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It appears to me that Peter claimed it as such.


The verse (Acts 19:6) says that they spake in tongues and prophesied. That means that they received, IMO, the Holy Ghost and began to, immediately, operate in the Spirit.

With all due respect PO,
I don't read about any of the Apostles teaching us that "speaking in tongues" is the "initial evidence" of receiving God's Spirit.

For me, the doctrine of "Initial Evidence" cannot be firmly established in the Scriptures with proper substantiation and support, especially in light of what it requires one to believe. Which is why many serious scholars and theologians of the Bible, as a rule, refrain from formulating and canonizing doctrines from the book of Acts. Acts is a narrative written after the Pauline Epistles, a point made by someone on here earlier. It is significant because narratives are understood as existing on structures already established. If we are to establish doctrines critical to point of excluding or including legions of the faithful, it is proper and right to start from the basic didactic portions of the Word before developing out more complex formulations about the narratives.

I guess that gives me away on at least one question on the survey.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

With all due respect PO,
I don't read about any of the Apostles teaching us that "speaking in tongues" is the "initial evidence" of the receiving God's Spirit.

For me, the doctrine of "Initial Evidence" cannot be firmly established in the Scriptures with proper substantiation and support, especially in light of what it requires one to believe. Which is why many serious scholars and theologians of the Bible, as a rule, refrain from formulating and canonizing doctrines from the book of Acts. Acts is a narrative written after the Pauline Epistles, a point made by someone on here earlier. It is significant because narratives are understood as existing on structures already established. If we are to establish doctrines critical to point of excluding or including legions of the faithful, it is proper and right to start from the basic didactic portions of the Word before developing out more complex formulations about the narratives.

I am taking the Word before me and I can't see it any other way. As I said, God would have to show that to me in order to believe anything else. He is very precise in everything that He does. There is more evidence, during the beginning of the NT church age, to identify it than there is against it. No theologian will dispute that Acts was the beginning of the NT church.

Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,"

Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."