The Biblical response to ACTS 2:38

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I know of a preacher that in most every sermon, when he hits his stride, gives out a "Shondo ma hya"

I don't remember any other utterances.

Did you ever think to yourself it all tongue talking in the bible was by the spirit WHY would Pau,l writing by the spirit, have to tell the Corinthians not to be doing it all the time (1 Cor 14)

If it was a botherig the Holy spirit enough to tell Paul to address this issue, why did't the holy spirit just not manifest this gift thru the Corinthians

A Corinthian speaks in tongues by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit tells them Shhhhhh !! thru Pauls epistle.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by snicker1986

Thank You!!

This is the most concise description I have ever seen of what I have long beleived.

I DO beleive that tongues is an experience that God gives us to confirm is presence with us, and bring us closer to him, but I have NEVER gotten a good explanation for how one could be repentant, have his sins washed away, and yet end up in hell.

In scriptural study, one must always identify passages as descriptive (things that DID happen) from perscriptive (things that MUST happen). Tongues on receiving the holy Ghost, as noted in the 4 Acts stories that are used to show tongues as evidence, are things that DID happen. Acts 2:38 tells us what MUST happen.

Some would say everything that DID happen MUST happen again, but passages about the OT patriarchs multiple wives and concubines were clearly historic descriptions and not an instruction to us today. So to the descriptions in Acts of the early church living communally.

Dont get me wrong...Tongues are to be desired for spiritual growth, and should be taught.....but not as salvational

While there is no doubt that some things are commanded/prescribed and other things are descriptive.....there are descriptive things that also explain how the prescribed is fulfilled or what some would call the normative response/pattern. IMHO the bolded statement is what makes your conclusion false.

I agree that Acts 2:38 tells us what 'Must" happen! However, the historical evidence in the rest of the book tells us "how" that "must" was fulfilled. In all but one case that any received the Holy Ghost, it was evidenced specifically by speaking with tongues, and IMHO it is easy to deduct from all of the other instances that the Samaritan's experience was the same.

Remember that when the report was given to the Jerusalem council concerning Cornelius and his household they identified tongues as the "proof" that the Holy Ghost had fallen on the gentiles the same as it had on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that every time the writer of the book of Acts says someone received the Holy Ghost they are making that statement based on what they had established as the "initial" sign. If there had been any other "alternative" proof of having received the Holy Ghost it would have been noted.

[missourimary]

But why do we need "proof" of people getting the Holy Ghost? Sinners may need evidence, but why does the church? In Acts 2, the Holy Ghost had never before been poured out in such a way. In Acts 10, the Holy Ghost had never been poured out on Gentiles before. Therefore, evidence may have been needed in certain cases. But does that mean it is always necessary to have outward evidence?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by missourimary

But why do we need "proof" of people getting the Holy Ghost? Sinners may need evidence, but why does the church? In Acts 2, the Holy Ghost had never before been poured out in such a way. In Acts 10, the Holy Ghost had never been poured out on Gentiles before. Therefore, evidence may have been needed in certain cases. But does that mean it is always necessary to have outward evidence?

An excellent point.

I am trying to remember the last time I heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind or saw cloven tongues like as of fire as well.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

An excellent point.

I am trying to remember the last time I heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind or saw cloven tongues like as of fire as well.

Nice try......... the wind/fire was not mentioned in the other historical occasions, however, tongues is a consistent part of the experience.

IMHO tongues as the initial evidence is easy to explain and understand. In the book of James we are told that if any man can control his tongue he can control the whole body. I believe that God could have chosen any "evidence" of having received his spirit that he wanted to.......but if he has control of the tongue he should have control of the whole body. I know many will say "what about those who's life/actions etc never change, or don't change right away?" If they never change....then they have not received the Holy Ghost or they aborted the work of God in their life. If their change is slow/gradual........it is the Holy Ghost working in them as they grow/mature in their relationship with God. (Just as it does in all of our lives......at least in mine.....I am not perfected as yet.....as hard as that may be to believe)

[missourimary]

What is the text surrounding the verses in James discussing? People getting the Holy Ghost or offenses, hypocrisy, and faith/works/fruit in the life of a believer?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by bishoph

While there is no doubt that some things are commanded/prescribed and other things are descriptive.....there are descriptive things that also explain how the prescribed is fulfilled or what some would call the normative response/pattern. IMHO the bolded statement is what makes your conclusion false.

I agree that Acts 2:38 tells us what 'Must" happen! However, the historical evidence in the rest of the book tells us "how" that "must" was fulfilled. In all but one case that any received the Holy Ghost, it was evidenced specifically by speaking with tongues, and IMHO it is easy to deduct from all of the other instances that the Samaritan's experience was the same.

Remember that when the report was given to the Jerusalem council concerning Cornelius and his household they identified tongues as the "proof" that the Holy Ghost had fallen on the gentiles the same as it had on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that every time the writer of the book of Acts says someone received the Holy Ghost they are making that statement based on what they had established as the "initial" sign. If there had been any other "alternative" proof of having received the Holy Ghost it would have been noted.

So you say, it's reasonable. Millions upon millions of Christians that show forth the sign Paul wrote about (Fruits and Love) reasonably disagree with your humble opinion.

Normative would then conclude that all liars would drop dead in the middle of a church service and be carried out by the ushers as did Annias and Saphirs in acts 5

Acts is a historical account of things that happened in the early church not necesarrily written to establish doctrines.

No where were we given instructions in the epistles that tongues were normative as salvational evidence.

In fact the epistles declare that God manifes all the gifts in believrs AS HE CHOOSES declaring some manifest prophrcy, some gifts of healing, some discernmet SOME tongues..... AS HE DECIDES.

and askes rehtoriclly, "do all speak with tongues"?


and please. enough with the argument that there are tongues as a gift and tongues as initial evidence......there is no scripture stating that.

I spent thirty years in the camp of the three steppers initial evidence folks.

I taught this doctrine o people and for that I have asked forgivness.

I speak in tongues. You speak in tongues all yuo'd like (within the guidelines of 1 Cor 12,13,14) but please examine closely your exegesis of your proof texts.

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

So you say, it's reasonable. Millions upon millions of Christians that show forth the sign Paul wrote about (Fruits and Love) reasonably disagree with your humble opinion.

Normative would then conclude that all liars would drop dead in the middle of a church service and be carried out by the ushers as did Annias and Saphirs in acts 5

Acts is a historical account of things that happened in the early church not necesarrily to establish doctrines.

No where were we given instructions in the epistles that tongues were normative as salvational evidence.

In fact the epistles declare that God manifes all the gifts in believrs AS HE CHOOSES declaring some manifest prophrcy, some gifts of healing, some discernmet SOME tongues..... AS HE DECIDES.

and askes rehtoriclly, "do all speak with tongues"?


and please. enough with the argument that there are tongues as a gift and tongues as initial evidence......there is no scripture stating that.

I spent thirty years in the camp of the three steppers initial evidence folks.

I taught this doctrine o people and for that I have asked forgivness.

I speak in tongues. You speak in tongues all yuo'd like (within the guidelines of 1 Cor 12,13,14) but please examine closely your exegesis of your proof texts.

I appreciate your honesty. I share the same testimony. I mentioned earlier in another thread how folks say that their speaking in tongues is God speaking through them, and yet they say the same thing over and over, in every service. It sounds like a learned thing to me. Is God that limited in His vocabulary.

And another thing.... It's a gift. If I do my part and then leave the rest up to Him, if it's mandatory, then I'm sure He'll will do His part. Oh yes, I know the next response. We watch and if they don't speak in tongues then we become judges and make a determination that they didn't truly repent. It's amazing how much some folks think that God can't do His gift giving without our judgement.

To the best of my memory the only time there was any tarrying was simply when the disciples were waiting in the upper room for the power from on high. In no other case do I remember they were tarrying, or waiting or begging for the Holy Ghost.

I am sure that this has been brought up before, but when did John the Baptist speak in tongues. He was filled in his mothers womb. Boy would I like to have him as a son....I could brag about how young my boy was when he first talked.

BeenThinkin ......again!

[missourimary]

Been thinkin and Freeatlast:

[freeatlast]

You know, on this initial evidence topic.

Acts 10:44-48 was NORMATIVE...there ya go, I agree.

It was NORMATIVE that when people heard the gospel in faith that they received the Holy Spirit. It is just an automatic.

What WAS NOT normative in this account was that they spoke in tongues when this happened.

It was so UNnormative that the believers that were with Peter were AMAZED.

It was not what they normally saw happen when people responded to the gospel.

What usally occured was like when the Philipian jailer got saved and when Lydia came to faith. No mention of them speaking in tongues.

No mention of the 3000 speaking in tongues.

There is way to much ASSUMING going on in the 3 step initial evidence doctrine.

Yes, tongues were a sign in the instances we all rally upon BUT there is nothing that should lead any of us to believe that this will happen in every instance every time.

The Acts do not record tongues in every instance that people come to faith.