Acts 2: Then and Now - Page 6

SteppingStone · #51 07-03-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

LOL! Good points, but there is a problem:

Paul wasn't scolding the Corinthians about the things I asked about. The Corinthians didn't take Acts 2:15-16 and make up an entirely new set of "manefestations."

Charismatics did.

See, these things are not in the Bible, so how can we use the Bible to explain them? It just leads to confusion...trying to prove the truth of something that wasn't in the manuscript in the first place.

We are trying to use the Bible to regulate actions that aren't even mentioned in the Word.

The question remains unanswered.

Again it goes back to Spiritual immaturity. It's like a kid with a new toy car, they gotta play with it, crash it, etc.. Way before they learn how to drive a real car..

Praxeas · #52 03-30-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

I am not mocking the Holy Ghost, and I do not believe anyone here is. This is not a game to me. I asked a simple question:

Why are the signs of the out-pouring today different from those of Acts? Why are all these 20th-21st century "activities" not recorded anywhere in Acts in reference to the Holy Ghost out-pourings?

It an easy question, but the only answers I have recieved are "Woe to thee for making fun of the Holy Ghost!" and "God wants us to be drunk in the Spirit and do these things. Do not question traditions!" There's only been staunch conservatives bickering with jaded liberals (no offence to those who have interjected neutrally).

No one has been able to give me a straight answer yet.

Signs such as? I have heard of people understanding someone speaking in a tongue. So it does happen. Acts 2 was the only recorded time it was understood.

What else?

JoeHardy07 · #53 03-30-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Signs such as? I have heard of people understanding someone speaking in a tongue. So it does happen. Acts 2 was the only recorded time it was understood.

What else?

One point I'm always hearing from Apostolics is this: If Acts chapter two is the beginning of the church, then it is the perfect example of salvation/baptism/Spirit infilling.

If that is so, and if the tongues were UNDERSTOOD in Acts 2, then we must assume that every other outpouring was accompanied by tongues that were UNDERSTOOD. See, in Acts chapter 8 it does not clearly state that tongues were even present, but with Acts 2 to guide us we ASSUME tongues were present, and those tongues were indeed languages of the earth.

onefaith2 · #54 03-30-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

There have been reports of people understanding what a person was saying while speaking with tongues because that person who heard it was familiar with the language spoken by the speaker with tongues.

I seen this with my own eyes.

onefaith2 · #55 03-30-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

One point I'm always hearing from Apostolics is this: If Acts chapter two is the beginning of the church, then it is the perfect example of salvation/baptism/Spirit infilling.

If that is so, and if the tongues were UNDERSTOOD in Acts 2, then we must assume that every other outpouring was accompanied by tongues that were UNDERSTOOD. See, in Acts chapter 8 it does not clearly state that tongues were even present, but with Acts 2 to guide us we ASSUME tongues were present, and those tongues were indeed languages of the earth.

Paul in teaching about spiritual gifts talked about speaking in tongues of men and of angels.

What do you believe the tongues of angels are?

JoeHardy07 · #56 03-30-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Paul in teaching about spiritual gifts talked about speaking in tongues of men and of angels.

What do you believe the tongues of angels are?

I'll answer that with another question: From cover to cover, what language did angels speak when they spoke to men? How many times did an angel speak in a language other than that of the person he was speaking to?

Somehow somebody took that verse and inserted "syllables are the tongues of angels. Just spurt syllables and we'll call it a heavenly language."

onefaith2 · #57 03-30-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

I'll answer that with another question: From cover to cover, what language did angels speak when they spoke to men? How many times did an angel speak in a language other than that of the person he was speaking to?

Somehow somebody took that verse and inserted "syllables are the tongues of angels. Just spurt syllables and we'll call it a heavenly language."

If what you are saying is true, then Paul even distinguishes tongues of men and of angels is incorrect. If they are the same, there is no need.

Godsdrummer · #58 03-31-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If what you are saying is true, then Paul even distinguishes tongues of men and of angels is incorrect. If they are the same, there is no need.

Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

We get all the understanding of tongues in I cor. 14 that we need to understand where there place in the church is.

JoeHardy07 · #59 03-31-2011, 10:38 AM

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1052645]Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

Exactly. There is nothing in scripture to prove otherwise.

onefaith2 · #60 03-31-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

We get all the understanding of tongues in I cor. 14 that we need to understand where there place in the church is.

If all the material so far relates to earthly tongues, what are we to make of the reference to the tongues of men and angels? Let's look at the context:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)

Paul is talking in superlatives in order to make a point. He is not talking about ordinary tongues any more than he is talking about ordinary prophecy or ordinary faith. He is saying if he has the ultimate in these gifts, the fullness of these gifts, so that he has "all faith" (literal Greek), fathoms "all mysteries", has "all knowledge", and all languages (the tongues of men and the angels) but not love, he is nothing. The text allows for angelic tongues but imply that these are exceptional.

http://www.alanmarshall.org/essays/TonguesOfAngels.htm