diversity?

[KWSS1976]

pel that would be a good way to discribe it...lol

[KWSS1976]

Hey my wife always tells me not to be so blunt about things..lol I say ok I will just start lying about things and not telling them as they really happen in the world..I will just sugar coat it...lol

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by allstate1

2 questions on this post! If tongues are the evidence of the Holy Ghost and the sign of salvation in the UPC why would Paul rather do it in private?? Who would know he is saved? Also what does the unbeliever here not believe in? Tongues or does he not believe the person speaking in tongues is saved?

1. First, I'm not UPC. Second, you should read Acts 10 again. Acts 10 actually says, "45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

How did they know that they had received the Holy Ghost? Verse 46 reveals the answer. "For they heard them speaking in tongues."

2. Paul wrote that tongues was a sign to unbelievers. "Tongues" was the sign that God was in that place. The average unbeliever probably came into the church doubting, well everything. Tongues was A sign, not the only sign. The believers good conduct and the preaching of the word of God was also a sign. Combine all of these elements, and the result is beautiful.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Hey my wife always tells me not to be so blunt about things..lol I say ok I will just start lying about things and not telling them as they really happen in the world..I will just sugar coat it...lol

Gotcha. It's just harder to tell when someone is angry or not when your just reading forum posts.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It seems to mean that the confusion arises when we as Pentecostals extol our "Pentecostal experience" as being "just like the apostles in Acts 2..."

It is this claim that allstate's question appears to address.

PF has pointed out the distinction between the events of Acts 2, and the circumstances Paul was speaking to in 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14.

Perhaps we should describe our churches as a "Corinthian experience" rather than a Book of Acts experience?"

Lol. Not really. Experience and tongues are two different things. The experience is the same, but the result is slightly different. They spoke in tongues, but the tongues were understandable to some.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

1. First, I'm not UPC. Second, you should read Acts 10 again. Acts 10 actually says, "45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

How did they know that they had received the Holy Ghost? Verse 46 reveals the answer. "For they heard them speaking in tongues."

2. Paul wrote that tongues was a sign to unbelievers. "Tongues" was the sign that God was in that place. The average unbeliever probably came into the church doubting, well everything. Tongues was A sign, not the only sign. The believers good conduct and the preaching of the word of God was also a sign. Combine all of these elements, and the result is beautiful.

How can we know that this "speaking in tongues" phenomena that we witness in our churches is the same thing as that recorded in Acts 2 (and probably Acts 10)?

They don't really line up.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How can we know that this "speaking in tongues" phenomena that we witness in our churches is the same thing as that recorded in Acts 2 (and probably Acts 10)?

They don't really line up.

Now you're just grasping at straws. Howdo you know the experience is any different than it was in the book of Acts? Were you in the upper room?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Now you're just grasping at straws. Howdo you know the experience is any different than it was in the book of Acts? Were you in the upper room?

Pel, here is where you pull out the young earth quote from Ken Ham and lob it back like the R2 button tosses the thrown grenade back on COD: Modern Warfare.

(In my best Australian accent, which is not so good) No, I wasn't there but I know someone who was and he told me about it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Lol. Not really. Experience and tongues are two different things. The experience is the same, but the result is slightly different. They spoke in tongues, but the tongues were understandable to some.

Therefore the experience was different. And, from the account in Acts 2, it would appear that not just "some" understood - but collectively, the 120 were speaking in the known and recognizable languages of the several nations listed.

This never happens in our churches. I know, I've heard contrary claims, but until it can be demonstrated I will assert that it NEVER happens.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Therefore the experience was different. And, from the account in Acts 2, it would appear that not just "some" understood - but collectively, the 120 were speaking in the known and recognizable languages of the several nations listed.

This never happens in our churches. I know, I've heard contrary claims, but until it can be demonstrated I will assert that it NEVER happens.

It happened to my grandfather. It happens to missionary's as allstate pointed out. It still happens my friend. So experience is based upon what you hear? What if Pentecostals feel the same thing as those in the upper room felt on the D.O.P.? Is the experience still different?