Smith Wigglesworth said:
Quote:I remember reading this many years ago when I was seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am glad that it was placed here for our remembrance. There has always been a check in my spirit every time someone says that they have the holy Spirit without the evidence of speaking in other tongues.
For many years I have thrown out a challenge to any person who can prove to me that he has the Baptism without speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance-to prove it by the Word that he has been baptized in the Holy Ghost without the Bible evidence, but so far no one has accepted the challenge. I only say this because so many were as I was; they have a rigid idea that they have received the Baptism without the Bible evidence. The Lord Jesus wants those who preach the Word to have the Word in evidence. Don't be misled by anything else. Have a Bible proof for all you have, and then you will be in a place where no man can move you.
The words of Paul again ring loud and clear,
Quote:"Have you received the holy Spirit since you believed". Thats proof right there that one doesn't receive the holy Spirit when they receive Christ into their heart. We read further that it was the laying on of hands that the holy Spirit was given and the Spirit gave them the utterance to speak in tongues and prophesied.
Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Why is it so hard to accept this? I am glad that I am labeled as "one of them".
Blessings to all.
| 2007/9/23 16:56|
Quote:Let me update the above statement.
The Church of Christ does not need a new Bible, nor new apostles, nor new faith-healers, nor new charismatic movements, nor self-styled miracle workers. What the Church needs is to return to the Word of God and proclaim the whole counsel of God in the power and love of the Holy Spirit.
The Church of Christ does not need a water down version of the Holy Bible. We need Apostles today, we need those gifted in the gifts of healing, we need all the gifts to be manifested like never before. We don't need another man made Christless movement, nor men who want to take the glory. What the Church needs is to return to the Word of God and proclaim the whole counsel of God in the power and love of the Holy Spirit.
Quote:The church of Jesus Christ is to be a Church of not word only, not a dead letter, but a triumphed Church having power to demonstrate to this world that Jesus Christ is who He said He is. LORD of Lords and KING of Kings. If that includes feelings, thats just gravy. :-)
1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power
| 2007/9/23 17:08|
"The "Initial Evidence" doctrine is based exclusively on historical narrative portions of Scripture. That is, the didactic (teaching) portions of Scripture have absolutely no bearing on the matter. This particular teaching is supplied uniquely through the Pentecostal doctrine, being officially promulgated since 1901. The book of Acts simply states that various groups spoke with tongues when receiving the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal theologian then [i]concludes[/i] that the same exact cookie-cutter pattern must be true for all believers, anywhere and at anytime. This is a leap in interpretation that is not revealed in Scripture itself.
Furthermore, we must maintain that this kind of reasoning is dangerous. Just because God did something in the past does not mean that He will do the same in the future in the exact same fashion. Ananias and Saphira were struck dead when the they lied to the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that all will fall dead if they repeat the same sin? We would not even be justified in saying that God will kill every person who lies before an apostle [i]since this would mean that we are saying God must always act in the identical same way.[/i] This is simply an abuse of narrative passages which are primarily intended for information rather than patternism."
Signs and wonders and men walking in obvious Spirit-filled fashion and preaching sermons under obvious Holy Ghost anointing were documented well before Smith Wigglesworth and C.F. Parham and the Azusa street phenomenoa. Tongues were not an issue for those men of old, neither at their intial Holy Ghost fillings/baptisms, nor subsequently during their God-intoxicated ministries.
I certainly agree that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a separate occurence from the New Birth and doesn't [i]normally[/i] happen at conversion (though I suppose it may, for God is sovereign), but I maintain that the doctrine of one [b]must[/b] speak initially in tongues at one's filling is purely inferential and assumptive and has no historic support from either the Spirit-filled men of old or direct teaching from the original apostles and Christ. Unless you've personally interviewed each and every Spirit-filled believer and ascertained whether tongues were present or not when they received the "enduement", you just can't make such an absolute statement from a few, incomplete historical scripture references -- references, furthermore, that were not intended to be taken didactically or doctrinally.
Paul Frederick West
| 2007/9/23 17:19||Profile|
| Re: Is speaking in tongues ...?|
Quote:This was when those who had been baptised in the Spirit were speaking in other tongues. Then Peter preached in Greek, which everyone understood.
There were no interpreters on the day of Pentecost as every man heard is his own language.
The gift of interpretation is scriptural. Is this what you have difficulty with.... that Paul implied he spoke with the tongues of angels?
Have you ever heard an interpretation of a tongue? (Is this what Compliments meant by his question?)
My impression of your stance is that because the use of tongues (seems to be something) you don't understand, and, it is not always an ecstatic utterance, you want it abandoned... not for any scriptural or spiritual reason, you just don't see why it should operate. Is this what you mean?
Isn't the gift of tongues just as any other gift, (including those special ministries which take over a person's whole life), of the Greek word 'charismata' - [i]graces[/i] - simply another manifestation of the life of the Holy Spirit in man in existence because [i][b]it pleases God[/i][/b]? - which is the only reason [i][b]any[/i][/b] of them need, either to exist or to flourish.
If I'm picking you up incorrectly, please keep putting me right. ;-)
| 2007/9/23 17:31|
katy-did, let me modify my question.Did wigglesworth do the exploits he did and speak in tongues by the power of the devil or were the miracles from God?
Just answer the question. No teaching needed.
I already asked you this once and you proceeded to give me a doctrinal purity makeover. I dont mean to sound ugly but you confuse people who genuinely wonder where you stand?
Please answer without a teaching.
.......Thanks , David
| 2007/9/23 20:31||Profile|
The Church of Christ does not need a water down version of the Holy Bible.
Compliments, There are many versions of the Holy Bible. I actually prefer the KJV.
The problem isn't with the Bible, but how we receive the Truth written in the Holy Bible, God's Word, and obey what it says.
Psalms 1, I'm not questioning anyone's ministry, that is not for me to do. Several posts here were lengthy doctrinal positions on the subject.
(Added) and BTW Psalms 1, that post was not ADDRESSED to you to begin with, so no need for insulting and condescending remarks here please....another cause for unnecessary contention....)
As the Article I posted opened up in stating...,
"It is the one subject that has divided the Church more than any other subject". But WHO is causing the division???? Who is taking the most AGGRESSIVE approach in *telling others* they are not saved or spiritual because of Tongues. How utterly STUPID. Spirituality comes with OBEDIENCE, not tongues. Jesus Didn't die on a cross so we could all speak in tongues.
Because people are being HURT over this subject that is why many VERY GODLY MEN take ****opposite*** views, ALSO HAVING scripture to back up why they believe as they do.
I felt it important to also post those as well to bring balance to this discussion, and WHY there is division on the subject.
Isn't that the problem with the church today and those who continue to want to FORCE on you their own beliefs? The article I posted brought History and background, as well as my own research on the subject.
I also KNOW Satan can *counterfeit* feelings, miracles, healings etc. We are warned in these last days that anti-christ is coming with lying SIGNS AND WONDERS.
What we need is discernment to know the difference between the real and the LIE.
If scripture says that even God's elect will be deceived if possible, then it's going to take much prayer and discernment. That discernment comes through God's Word. It's the Word of God that is living and powerful and sharper than a two-edge sword that can pierce and divide truth from lie.
Satan is the author of confusion as well as causing divisions amongst brethren.
Maybe we should LISTEN to what EVERYONE has to say, and not PUT DOWN or INSULT the works of others because you are not in agreement. That right there is the beginning of contention.
Only GOD will know about Wigglesworth or who ever. Many will say...I did miracles, healings etc, and Jesus Clearly said He will reply back....(to some) I NEVER KNEW YOU.
Compliments and Psalms 1....That IS my final answer.
Love in Christ
| 2007/9/24 6:42|
1 Corinthians 12:
1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Paul starts off the subject matter of Tongues, and Spiritual Gifts in the Beginning of 1st Corinthians 12, telling these new Christians coming from pagan gods (would seem like a no-brainer - huh?) that just because you *utter* something, that doesn't mean it is of God.
He clearly is giving the guidelines here one can UTTER, and curse God at the same time. He's even stating there is paganism going on.
Love in Christ
| 2007/9/24 8:56|
Quote:Even though Tongues is the issue at hand in regards to this thread, but when it comes to the redemptive work it's a small thing in comparison.
Jesus Didn't die on a cross so we could all speak in tongues.
I don't believe that anyone has inferred here that the speaking in tongues is a must for you to be saved.
One is saved by grace thru faith PERIOD!!
Now in regards to receiving the holy Spirit and the evidence thereof, we are now talking about a different thing altogether. You need to stop mixing salvation with the receiving of the holy Spirit and the speaking in other tongues. Even though they are very much connected, but please understand that the Eunuch that Philip baptized in water was saved by grace thru faith.
Even though we know it's not written that he received the holy Spirit, but he being a devout believer of the Jews religion no doubt came back to Jerusalem the following year and being in the company of other Christians would have found out about the baptism of holy Spirit sooner or later. (Pure Speculation)
| 2007/9/24 10:42|
katy-did I can see that in your mind you actually believe you have the"high ground" .
The use of words like lie and stupid detract from "open" discussion.
what you accuse others of is what you do.
I merely asked you a question but you skirted the issue 3 times and never answered the question.
Unless you call chastising me and giving me yet another teaching and doctrinal makeover to a yes or no type question?
My point is if tongues are not for today or whatever then the use of them and miracles "this power" [in your mind] must be from the devil since we can rule out God.
| 2007/9/24 11:03||Profile|
Quote:Your right in that God does not do the same EXACT thing twice. He always does things differently and always to cause us to be in awe of His workings. For example, Peter no doubt had a set formula in that you repent, be baptized and then you'll receive the holy Ghost. But one day while preaching to the first gentiles he saw that the holy Ghost was being poured out before they were baptized in water. Even though the formula was changed, the experience remains the same, for it says that they were filled with the holy Spirit like as we in the beginning and spoke in tongues.
Furthermore, we must maintain that this kind of reasoning is dangerous. Just because God did something in the past does not mean that He will do the same in the future in the exact same fashion.
For some it may take several years, for others when they come out of the baptismal tank. The method of when, how and the way one receives is always different, but when the holy Spirit comes in you will speak in tongues, that will never change.
For example, Annais and Sapphira were struck dead instantly for lying to the holy Ghost. Sam Kinison a former Pentecostal preacher turned anti God comedian died instantly in a car crash at the tender age of 38. There are many methods to which God uses to bring about death, but death is death that will always remain the same. But the method of that death changes.
We know this because everyone has a different story to tell about how they were born again. The circumstances the situations are all different, but it remains the same in regards to the Spirit's work in an individual, the light is turned on.
| 2007/9/24 11:06|