SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is speaking in tongues...

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

I love this testimony from Carter Conlon of Times Square Church.[url=http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID1755.mp3]Testimony[/url]

 2007/9/24 11:45









 Re:

Quote:
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.



Compliments,
This is where this teaching is completely OFF balance.

Where does scripture teach one can be Born Again, Born OF THE SPIRIT, The Spirit of the Life of Christ that set you free from the Law of Sin and death without receiving the Holy Spirit? How many Holy Spirits are there?

This is where you don't understand the New Covenant of the promise of the SPIRIT.

Do you actually believe the Holy Spirit was promised in the New Covenant or New Testament to speak in tongues, or just to receive spiritual gifts?

The answer is, our Spiritual gifts accompany our new Birth, and there are no Spiritual Gift to those who are not born Again, born of the Spirit to begin with. It's JESUS who has given the Gifts to His Body to begin with. When we are Born Again, we are COMPLETE In Him...period!!!

You are suggesting what is called a second blessing, and no such thing exists.

Please refer to Cornelius. Was there a SECOND blessing mentioned when he received the Gospel?

Do you think Peter and Company went ALL that way, just for Cornelius to receive his gift of tongues? Obviously they were BOTH received in ONE sitting...ONE Baptism!

This is what I object to, this thing called a second Blessing, or an additional Baptism of the Holy Spirit.


Tongues obviously were a SIGN one had received the Holy Spirit(Salvation) in this first Century Church.

You can't have it both ways. Cornelius did not have an ADDITIONAL Holy Spirit.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did


Quote:
but please understand that the Eunuch that Philip baptized in water was saved by grace thru faith




PS: And you are also suggesting Water Baptism saves....It does not, The RISEN Life of Jesus Christ SAVES. Our Life identified with Christ in death and resurrection life is our BAPTISM. Romans 6. Colossians 2 are VERY important scripture about our Baptism with Christ in death and resuttection life.

The SPIRIT that raised up Christ from the dead has also QUICKENED our mortal flesh, and raised us up together with Him, BY THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! THIS same Holy Spirit promised in the New Covenant.

Hebrews 13:20&21 Romans 8:11-13

Do you believe the Bible???

Added, Let me re-phraise by say this on that last comment. If your faith does not produce your baptism into death and resurrection life, then you can forget the water thing.

Just as circumcision never saved a Jew, Baptism dies not save anyone. Both were OUTWARD SIGNS of a true faith. In the OT, TRUE Circumcision was that of the Heart and Ears. Circucision was the setting apart of a Holy People, as Abraham was not saved by Circumcision (romans 4) but by Faith. Our Baptism unto death and resurrection life In Christ is OUR setting Apart a Holy Priesthood, Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, of which the Jews stumbled, as well as many professing Christians....they stumbled at the CROSS,the stone of stumbling and Rock of offense.

The Cross is an offence to those who would avoid it at all costs.

As we see in 1 Corinthians, these were CARNAL Christians, who yes, received spiritual gifts.

Paul was rather more concerned with their maturity in understanding the Cross. Read the WHOLE Letter of 1st Corinthians, not just a verse or chapter. It was originally a WHOLE letter, addressing many ..."Christian's behaving badly" issues.





 2007/9/24 11:48
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Sam Kinison a former Pentecostal preacher turned anti God comedian died instantly in a car crash at the tender age of 38.



Instantly? As far as I understand, after turning his back on God, the man had a carreer in stand-up comedy and acting for sometime before he died. Where does "instantly" factor into this? Besides, for every one Sam Kinison, there are ten thousand other scoffers and liars who are living in health and wealth. They live very long and prosper and write books. Why has not God "instantly" struck down the various former Christians who have turned agnostic and atheistic? Many of them boast against God on YouTube and debate creationists.

Quote:
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.



Again, brother, you have nothing at all to base this particular absolute on but a doctrinal speculation introduced to you by man. One who subscribes to this doctrinal mindset blindly sweeps aside all evidence of Spirit-filled Christianity prior to 1901. You cannot prove one iota of what you claim is absolute, not by scripture, not by reason, not by history. You are merely regurgitating what someone else taught you, and what they, in turn, were taught by someone else, and that "someone else" probably had to intellectually acquiesce to this teaching to join a fellowship. You can trace it all back to one man in 1901, and what this man did is tie together several historical instances in the book of Acts and deduce a pattern that God must always obey.

Thankfully, history proves otherwise.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2007/9/24 12:19Profile









 Re:

Quote:
And you are also suggesting Water Baptism saves

I suggested nothing of the sort. Please read my post, I said, "For by grace are you saved thru faith".

Moving on.........

Quote:
You can't have it both ways. Cornelius did not have an ADDITIONAL Holy Spirit.

I am glad that you brought this up. Let the word interpret the word.

Quote:
Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.8 And there was great joy in that city.12 [b]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ[/b], they were baptized, both men and women.13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, 15 [b]Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.[/b]

How do you interpret verse 12, and then verses 15-17?

 2007/9/24 13:02









 Re:

Katy-did said:

Quote:
This is where this teaching is completely OFF balance.


Quote:
Tongues obviously were a SIGN one had received the Holy Spirit(Salvation)


You equate them as the same where as they are not. That is the OFF balance from your false interpretation of Scripture.


Kady-did,

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. Heb 5:12 KJV

 2007/9/24 13:03









 Re:

Quote:
Why has not God "instantly" struck down the various former Christians who have turned agnostic and atheistic? Many of them boast against God on YouTube and debate creationists.

I don't know why Paul, perhaps it is God who has mercy. I used Sam Kinison as an example, I could have used many many more, but he was on the top of my noggin. Many too fall in the bracket of, "Father forgive them for they no not what they do" and many of them don't.
Quote:
As far as I understand, after turning his back on God, the man had a career in stand-up comedy and acting for sometime before he died

Didn't I say that in my posting?
Quote:
. One who subscribes to this doctrinal mindset blindly sweeps aside all evidence of Spirit-filled Christianity prior to 1901. You cannot prove one iota of what you claim is absolute, not by scripture, not by reason, not by history

Then, I am glad that I am blind, for as long as I am blind, I see. Because If I say I see, then my sin remaineth.

I do not doubt for a moment that people received the holy Spirit before 1901, what I am saying is if they haven't spoken in tongues upon their receiving they were not filled with the Holy Spirit.

But can't men do a great work on the basis of being saved by grace thru faith? The Baptists do it. If this thinking is narrow minded, then I am narrow minded.

Do I stop reading the works of Luther, Clarke, Calvin because these men didn't receive the holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? God forbid! And how do I know that they didn't, they might have. They are still my Brothers regardless. Am I better than they, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 2007/9/24 13:40









 Re:

Quote:
You equate them as the same where as they are not. That is the OFF balance from your false interpretation of Scripture.



JulianSims: I'm also in good company with those who by your definition ONLY (no scripture to back up your comment)have a false interpretation.

You will not find any verse in scripture that says
"THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT". You may THINK you have found those EXACT words, but you have not.

Cornelius received the GIFT OF THE SPIRIT....Nothing says he received "THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT".

Also remember, when Jesus said many will come saying Haven't we done this or that, concerning miracles and wonders, He will say I NEVER KNEW YOU.

SO, My point IS, many will havethe ability to do miracles by the power of an unholy spirit...YET WERE [b][color=CC0000]NEVER SAVED[/color][/b].

Why will they be nashing and knawing their teeth, cursing God?

Probably because someone let them think because they spoke in tongues, or received the unholy spirit doing these wonders things , didn't also take them OUT OF ACTS into the Meat of the WORD to begin with. They may have realized they were missing something....SALVATION that preceeds.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did





What do you think about that????


 2007/9/24 14:17









 Re:

Katy-did wrote:

Quote:
What do you think about that????



Your of a wrong Spirit. Your attitude and smart remarks to me and others are not of God but of yourself, your flesh. You think more highly of yourself then you ought. Some like yourself are just not teachable.

I'm done with this thread and speaking to you entirely on any subject. Your heart is not right. Your just wise in your own eyes.

 2007/9/24 14:26









 Re: Is speaking in tongues ...




While I've been writing this, I've been following the additional posts EDIT: Oops... not the last two, though... end. since Katy's as quoted below, and maybe realising that everyone seems to have an entrenched position... which doesn't mean to say that's wrong, but I want to entrench God's position in my thinking, and I believe scripture gives us a steady stream of exceptions, just to make sure we understand God holds the reins.


Hi Katy,

Please don't take offence (as if you would ;-) ) at what I'm about to put to you. I think you are a representative of a certain kind of all-or-nothing belief system, which usually is the best kind, but which can bring the most needy people into more rather than less bondage, if they can't attest to it for themselves. I think I used to be one of those, so rather than admit that the ministry didn't make any sense to my understanding, I tried to fit in, while shielding my aching soul from any possible discovery of the awful truth about my state. OK. That may have been wrong - pride, even - but my point is that God met me little by little as I was able to receive Him. He understood.

I have no idea who has said what or quite what the dispute is about, but I'm going to make what I believe is a fair assumption about you: that whenever you first received the Holy Spirit, you didn't know [i]all[/i] that you know now. And the research you do to learn about church history, cults and doctrines (etc.), is because before you do that research, you don't (already) [u]know[/u] what you're going to find out. In other words, you are open to [i]learn[/i] something you haven't grasped before, rather like Here4Him who has posted a touching exposition in the Scriptures forum, of his first-time discovery of the truth you expound here about our being planted in Christ's death and resurrection.

Therefore, when you say something like this:

Quote:
You are suggesting what is called a second blessing, and no such thing exists.

please, tell me you realise this is an [i]assumption[/i] on your part. You [i]personally[/i] cannot possibly know what state a person was in after their first, second or [i]nth[/i] encounter with God. You're guessing, aren't you, based on either your own experience, or the brand of biblical exposition you've sat under? And yet there is, I believe, a way of reading scripture which allows [u]both[/u]... your stance and that of those who honestly describe their experience differently [u]and[/u] who see their experience also described in the Bible.

For instance, you said
Quote:
Please refer to Cornelius. Was there a SECOND blessing mentioned when he received the Gospel?

but Cornelius had seen either the Lord, or an angel, who directed him to call for Peter. Not many of us can make such a claim! This was not a man who knew nothing about God, nor had been slothful to do what he understood as right. He was living up to [u]the hilt[/u] of everything he knew to do! But, we know he could not have been a [i]son[/i] of God, because until Pentecost no-one could be.

We also know that God had been pouring out his Spirit for service, in the Old Testament, speaking face-to-face with people like Noah and Abram, giving His word to prophets, anointing kings who would receive His word and promote the law. This was not new.

[i]Tongues[/i] were new, but [i]not[/i] the principle of God equipping His people by both a measure of His Spirit and other miraculous provisions.

Now, you may never have thought of these things like this, but it may be a more robust way to interpret [i]all[/i] that scripture reveals to us of God's historical movings, I believe.

Quote:
Do you think Peter and Company went ALL that way, just for Cornelius to receive his gift of tongues? Obviously they were BOTH received in ONE sitting...ONE Baptism!

Maybe you are missing something here? Up till this point, Peter and the other apostles were [u]only[/u] preaching Jesus to [b]Jews[/b]. Peter went all the way over there to preach for the [i]first[/i] time to a [u]gentile[/u], and judging by his surprise when the Holy Spirit fell on them, he wasn't exactly sure how God was going to bless them through this information. He probably hadn't (at that stage) had time to formulate doctrine about what had happened at Pentecost, but he would have been aware gentiles could come into the faith of the Jews and be circumcised as a sign of it.

Quote:
You can't have it both ways. Cornelius did not have an ADDITIONAL Holy Spirit.

Surely Cornelius is not a good example of what we are discussing? He couldn't have been born again any sooner than he was, (and one has the impression he would have been baptised in the Spirit in such a way as tongues were manifested - whenever it happened - because that was what God had prepared for him).

Would it be dreadful to suggest that the 'ONE BAPTISM' might be discerned [u]in parts[/u] by some of those who receive it? That perhaps some people are in so much bondage that although the anointing they receive is, indeed, breaking the yoke in their experience, they cannot honestly testify to certain liberty until they are sure their graveclothes have been unwound?

Quote:
This is what I object to, this thing called a second Blessing, or an additional Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

How many times is the word 'filled' (with the Spirit) mentioned in Acts? .... So, what was happening there? Were [i]they[/i] being 'baptised' again in the Holy Spirit? If yes, then amen. Or, is that first infilling referred to as the 'baptism', only? Either way, what possible reason could God have for withholding a greater measure or an [i]additional[/i] measure of the Spirit from His own children? Surely we would say [i]it's all good![/i]...?

Quote:
Tongues obviously were a SIGN one had received the Holy Spirit(Salvation) in this first Century Church.

This is a very subtle point, but didn't the Holy Spirit [i]follow[/i] their prior faith? (We are saved by faith, primarily - acknowledging that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and was raised from the dead). The Holy Spirit comes in response to our faith, to [i]continue[/i] to lead us into deeper understanding and knowledge of Him who through the Spirit becomes God our [i]Father[/i].

The Holy Spirit has other discernable functions. The application of Christ's death and resurrection life is one we cannot escape if we are to know Jesus personally, but this - knowing Jesus personally - was not a function the Spirit could have had before the incarnation, even if in spirit the prophets discerned Christ (I include David as a prophet.) and it is plain from scripture that believers don't all receive the same gifts.

You said 'we are COMPELETE' but, while you may mean [i]perfected[/i] in the sense of [i]completed[/i], we all have to grow.

I would add that I believe the parables of the talents also tell us that if we use the gifts we are given at first, they will be multiplied. Some people don't receive tongues until their faith has increased for that particular gift - not because tongues is\was not available to them, but because they are\were not available to tongues. Ever thought about that?

That might be just another application of the life of God to ours through the Holy Spirit [i]in our experience[/i]. But even God is necessarily limited by several factors, one of them being the kind of teaching we sat under before we received the spirit of adoption.


Now I've said all this, what do you make of the analysis offered by GW North in the book which Mike Balog has posted under the title 'A most important work'?

I'd recommend everyone to read the first dozen short pages because he addresses Christ's commissioning the disciples for service, [i]after His resurrection[/i] (which is what happens to us), for which they should wait to receive the Holy Spirit.

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=19654&forum=34&2]http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=19654&forum=34&2[/url]


Please [i]everyone[/i] take the distinctions GWN makes, into consideration and see? I think they may give all of us another angle to add to this discussion. I'd like to think so.


EDIT: Katy, thanks for bearing with me.

 2007/9/24 14:32
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Then, I am glad that I am blind, for as long as I am blind, I see. Because If I say I see, then my sin remaineth.



Brother, that's not the kind of blindness I was refering to. What I meant was being willfully ignorant of church history and the lack of Scriptural authority in a didactic sense.

Quote:
Do I stop reading the works of Luther, Clarke, Calvin because these men didn't receive the holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues?



I think there may be a miscommunication here. I would hesitatingly agree somewhat that the likes of Martin Luther and Calvin may not have experienced the [i]baptism in the Holy Ghost[/i], that is, the second blessing, tongues or not. Brother, I just don't know. Many people believe that receiving the Holy Spirit at conversion is tantamount to the "baptism" in the Holy Spirit, but I don't subscribe to this and neither did other men of God who lived before 1901 and [i]experienced the baptism.[/i] The fact that they didn't speak in tongues is what unsettles you, and other Pentecostals alike who seem to have inagurated a cornerstone as to [i]how[/i] God must baptize a beliver and what must happen. According to you, if there are no tongues, the person was never baptized and is not filled with the Holy Spirit regardless of the signs and wonders accompanying their ministry and the fruit and power of the Spirit-filled life.

Quote:
They are still my Brothers regardless. Am I better than they, ABSOLUTELY NOT!



Amen. I know you believe this; I wouldn't for a moment suspect you thought higher of someone who never spoke in tongues at their Spirit baptism. Booth and Wesley and Finney and Moody and Fox were not filled with the Holy Spirit, according to you but yet multitudes of tongue-talking believers who are completely comatose outside of their church apparently [i]are[/i]. Guaging the genuiness of every pre-1901 and post-1901 believer's baptism soley upon an outward phenomenoa that is not once mentioned in a didactic epistle or direct teaching of Jesus Christ just seems so...I don't know...the product of man looking through a dark glass as though it were a transparent cosmic bi-focal.

Well, dear brother, I see we can argue this till the cows come home! I don't wish to do this. Such discussions are fruitful to a point, and then it becomes apparent neither can budge from a cemented conviction...and it just becomes redundant and clamorous. I do cherish our fellowship and think it's time for me to call it quits here. Thanks for respectfully engaging your brother and being so courteous to me.

Till we meet again!

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2007/9/24 14:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy