SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Revivals And Church History : William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival by Gary B. McGee

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Jim Cymbala



It should be noted that Cymbala does not believe that tongues is always the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2004/9/22 14:41Profile
Yodi
Member



Joined: 2004/4/23
Posts: 663
Escondido, California

 Re:

Hulsey,

I was in NO WAY meaning to "bash" on Pentecostals. I'm sorry I offended you. I was merely sharing my thoughts on this Azusa Street Revival, from what I read in the article. My comments were on this revival and it's leader, not the Pentecostal church.

My focus/intent/motive was to share my convictions on focusing more on the Giver of the gifts rather than on the gifts themselves, and when praying for gifts and exercising them, love being the motivation, as Paul said over and over again in 1 Corinthians. The church of Corinth had abused the gifts, and Paul had to go correct them. I like the Word of God to be the standard for Christian living rather than a denomination, a movement, a revival, a person, etc. God isn't a denomination and neither is His Word.


_________________
Yolanda Fields

 2004/9/22 14:55Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Jimmy,

You are correct. And I believe that Carter has made similar statements, but I'm not sure which sermon it is in which he makes those statements. And you were also correct about Bartleman. He was pretty quick to judge the others at Azusa. According to him the main thrust of the revival, if I remember correctly, took place at a mission called the Burning Bush instead of the Azusa mission.

Philo,

What I am convinced of is that it is a post salvific event. Whether there will be tongues spoken or not I'm not absolutely sure of myself, but I know that something happens. It's not somehting that's just "taken by faith". Something noticeable will take place in the Believers life inward and outward. People won't just have to take your word on it.

Initial physical evidence implies further evidences that will take place. Namely empowerment for service. What I was saying was that it's taught that it's the first evidence, but not the final one, and if it's the only evidence a person sees in their life then it was probably a false subjective experience. Thus it is called the [i]initial[/i] evidence.

Yodi,

I didn't mean to come accross as crass. I was in a hurry so I typed out something really quick. Sorry about that. I'm not that good at expressing my emotions in typed words.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/9/22 15:29Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Jimmy,

You are correct.



Wow, what a great statement :) I like that!

And btw, I don't believe tongues to be the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit... though it might be, and normally probably is. Like Seymour would eventually believe, and as Cymbala believes, I'm primarily concerned with the subsequent power than the subsequent manifestation. Such was the focus of Christ, for He said "you shall receive power..." not "you shall receive tongues..."


_________________
Jimmy H

 2004/9/22 16:00Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Quote:
Wow, what a great statement :) I like that!



Everyone gets it right sometimes...lol

Quote:
Such was the focus of Christ, for He said "you shall receive power..." not "you shall receive tongues..."



Wow Jimmy, you're doing good today... :-P I don't like it when I'm in a church that stresses tongues to the detriment of the purpose of the baptism of the Spirit. I think we're both in agreement on this.


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/9/22 16:12Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Initial physical evidence implies further evidences that will take place. Namely empowerment for service. What I was saying was that it's taught that it's the first evidence, but not the final one, and if it's the only evidence a person sees in their life then it was probably a false subjective experience. Thus it is called the initial evidence.


Jeremy
I think this is special pleading. This is not the sense in which the doctrine was formulated. Initial evidence was used in the sense of first and absolute proof of the experience. This is the way in which most would use it; not in the sense that it is an evidence that must be later substantiated by other pieces of evidence, but that it was sufficient evidence to 'prove' the validity of the experience. Without this absolutely essential evidence the experience was regarded as invalid.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/22 17:30Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

BTW we did have quite a full discussion on this topic some time ago. For any who want to revisit the thread it can be found as Initial Evidence Paper.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/23 6:00Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37222
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
The Azusa Street revival illustrated the fundamental truth about the acquisition of spiritual power: The desire to love others and win the world for Christ begins with brokenness, repentance, and humility.


Yes brother Lars this is very true, even though there were many unscriptural extremes that were emphasized during this movement the foundational fuel was the life of Christ being shown to the world, the fruit is evident with 10000's of pentecostal churches across the world bearing fruit for God.

Quote:
#1 The gift of tongues being the proof of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is unbiblical.


Well its very scriptural to say it was a proof at one time (for at least the intial pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Jews then on Gentiles). Also I am quite convinced it still does happen from time to time. It could be said its [b]one[/b] of the proofs. The true proof is a Holy life. As Leonard Ravenhill pointed out "the devil cant fake a holy life."

[b]1 Peter 1:15-16[/b] - But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

[b]Hebrews 12:14[/b] - Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Quote:
#2 The gift of tongues is not for the use of man to man, but for the use of man to God, according to 1 Corinthians 14:2,


Sorry miss Yolanda but you are wrong. :-( In those passages in Corinthians and in all the scriptures there are clearly layed out 2 different types of tongues. One that is of mens languages and one that is a heavenly language. In Acts 2 the 'mens language' was used and everyone could hear the praises of God in their own tongue (thats man to man) God using it for evangelistic purposes. From Asuza street [b]some[/b] were given the gift of understanding an entire language, I heard of some early pentecostal missionaries just leaving for the country God led them too believing he will enable them to understand the language, and guess what it happened! The gift of tongues which is a heavenly gift is for man to God. But it [b]can[/b] be for (man to man) if someone interprets the tongue.

Quote:
I think there's a difference between copying past movings of the Spirit, and desiring the Holy Spirit to come upon you and fill you in any way He wills.


Thats unbiblical and will open the church up to many delusions which sadly have been occouring in the church in our day. I want a filling of the Spirit that is biblical and that is exactly the same one the apostles had, tongues or no tongues.

Quote:
I would be cautious with ANY movement, revival, teaching, etc. that's main focus was on receiving gifts from the Holy Spirit.


Yes some movements have turned into this.. which is a sad extreme and really doesnt glorify God but is selfishness. I watched a video of Keith Daniel last night where he exceels Holiness and Love as earmarks of a Christian that God can use.

"The mightiest weapon God could ever have at His disposal is a [b]Holy[/b] man that is governed by [b]Love[/b]." - Keith Daniel

Quote:
In summation, I believe our main focus as Bible believing Christians should be on the Giver of the gifts and taking care that all our motivations stem from His love for us and for others.


Yes very true sister, but the reason why I posted the article on Asuza was for you to read it :-P but also for us as Christians to see people getting out of nomial Chrisitanity and allowing God to work in their lifes. The zeal, determination, fire that was started at Asuza street literally went around the world like a blaze bringing much fruit to God. We can argue all the small extremes and problems but it [b]cannot[/b] be argued that as many pentecostal streams matured they became very effective for kingdom of God. Lord send another Asuza street revival!


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 6:46Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37222
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
The UK Elim church taught that 'tongues' was 'an' evidence, but the AoG maintained 'tongues' was 'the' evidence.


Ahhh the Elim pentecostal movement. I have heard so much good from this move of God, J. Glyn Owen when I met with him told me of some stories of these meetings what a blessing indeed.

Quote:
I don't like it when I'm in a church that stresses tongues to the detriment of the purpose of the baptism of the Spirit. I think we're both in agreement on this.


Can we take it a step further and say that this is the [b]real[/b] filling of the spirit, 'a baptism of love?'

[b]Ephesians 3:19[/b] - And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 6:50Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Well its very scriptural to say it was a proof at one time (for at least the intial pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Jews then on Gentiles). Also I am quite convinced it still does happen from time to time. It could be said its one of the proofs. The true proof is a Holy life. As Leonard Ravenhill pointed out "the devil cant fake a holy life."


The rules of evidence differ in different realms. The mathematician seeks the proof by a theorem that will prove that not only is 'a' true but that only 'a' can be true. For example, in Pythagoras there is no possible scenario where in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypoteneuse is not equal to the sum of the squares on the other two side. This is absolute mathematical proof. There is no way that tongues as the initial physical evidence could be regarded as a mathematical proof. The pure mathematician pities 'scientific proof'.

The scientist's proof begins with a hypothesis which cannot be disproved. He then codifies his findings into a law and provides a laboratory experiment which 'proves' the truth of his law. But, in the nature of scientific experiement, it is impossible to prove that something is 'not true'. So he proves that 'a' can be the truth. Until is it possible to use laboratory conditions upon random subjects and to guarantee identical results we cannot say that 'tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism' has been scientifically proved. The scientist pities 'legal proof'.

The lawyer deals with forensic truth. Circumstantial evidence is allowable and will often acculmulate to such an extent that it is difficult to ignore. His best hope is to convince the jury of the probability of 'a' and the improbability of 'b-z'. If he can get the verdict he wanted the accused becomes a 'proven criminal'.

When we talk about the 'initial evidence' for genuine baptism in the Spirit we are in the realm of 'legal evidence'. We have sets of probabilities and improbabilities and base our 'verdict' on the evidence we are given. There may well be missing evidence that would have altered our verdict, and short of a verse of scripture which says 'the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Spirit is speaking with tongues' we should be cautious in our use of the word 'proof'. The best, honest, comment we can make is that on the small amount of evidence available to us, and understanding that the theory can never be properly tested, there is a strong probability that 'tongues may be one of the initial physical evidences of the baptism'. Any denomination wanting to use this clause in their doctrinal statement is welcome to do so. :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/23 8:32Profile





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