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
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Hmmm,

Quote:
From Asuza street some 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!



My recollection is fuzzy, but wasn't just the opposite true with one of these leaders? That he went to China or somewhere believing that he would be able to speak the language and it did not happen?

Two key words; "The" and "May", think Ron got it right and I have serious reservations even on the latter...but put down the stones, rather would come alongside Paul here;

1Co 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

All the 'evidence' we need.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/9/23 9:05Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37211
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
My recollection is fuzzy, but wasn't just the opposite true with one of these leaders? That he went to China or somewhere believing that he would be able to speak the language and it did not happen?


Yes I believe that did happen also, but the fact that many of the ones that went out in faith actually recieved that blessing valifies its genuinity. Its a remarkable thing.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 9:07Profile
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re:

Yodi wrote:
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."

-------------------------------
Greg responded:
"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."

How is letting the Spirit come upon and fill you however He wills unbiblical?

 2004/9/23 9:13Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Was just thinking..

[i]"My recollection is fuzzy"[/i]

The understatement of the year! :-P


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/9/23 9:19Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37211
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

sorry Todd I didnt quote the entire thought from sister yolanda.

Quote:
Each moving of the Holy Spirit is as unique as a thumb print, and can't be copied exactly. 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.


My remark was towards the fact that its unbiblical to say that God doesnt do things the same. He does.. there are characteristics and signs of genuine revival in through all scripture. If we dont base our experience of the filling of the Holy Ghost on Scripture then what do we base it on? what is to say we arent being filled with [b]another[/b] spirit etc. I hope that clarifies my intention to that statement.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 9:19Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Two key words; "The" and "May", think Ron got it right and I have serious reservations even on the latter...but put down the stones, rather would come alongside Paul here;


Hi Mike

I was trying to be a good statician here...
tongues are clearly evidenced in in 3 out 5 accounts of the Spirit's initial reception in Acts; that's 60%
Added to that we should note that in Samaria there was some kind of evidence that persuaded Simon the reality of the experience, and Paul who received at the hands of Ananias later. although the event itself is not recorded, said he 'spoke with tongues more than all'; it is very possible/probable that this began when he received the Spirit. So, from the limited information in Acts, the final score is better than 60% but that is far too low a number, in my mind, to formulate a 'proof'.

Acts 2, 10, 19 are all special events in one sense. Acts 2 is the inauguration. Acts 10 is the Gentile 'pentecost' and Acts 19 is a decisive move from disciples of John to full orbed Christian experience. There are so many unique features that I err on the side of caution when formulating doctrine from their experiences. The Cornelius Household comment... And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God... (Act 10:45-46 KJV) Has been used as the definitive statement but this was the sign for 'unbelieving' Jewish Christians that God had granted 'repentance to life to the Gentiles'.

Lest any should misunderstand my position, I would say similar to the word of Paul; I thank my God, I speak with tongues... (I won't compete with his final words ;-))


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/23 9:29Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37211
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
tongues are clearly evidenced in in 3 out 5 accounts of the Spirit's initial reception in Acts; that's 60%


Thats pretty good odds.. ok my money is on 'tongues' opps man sorry thats not too funny or is it. :-P


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 9:34Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Quote:
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.



I'm kind of scratching my head here right now. Yes it is considered absolutely essential. I haven't denied that. But I also know that it's not considered a finality. This is where I disagree with you respectfully. We also consider as essential a life that is empowered by the Spirit to follow the initial physical evidence. It's taught at CBC (The A/G's main bible college in the USA) as the outward evidence of an inward experience. Speaking in tongues in other words is not as much proof to the one in which it is taking place as it is to those present.(I am not denying here that it is also proof to the one being baptized. But ideally, what is taking place in the heart should be convincing the subject as much as their speaking in tongues.)

As far as it being the only needed proof; you're going to have to argue with my professors on that one, because I was taught very differently at a Pentecostal college. Yes it can be looked back upon as the initial baptism. But the Assemblies don't teach that there is only one but multiple baptisms in the sense that the scriptures say be filled and keep on being filled.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/9/23 10:43Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
As far as it being the only needed proof; you're going to have to argue with my professors on that one, because I was taught very differently at a Pentecostal college. Yes it can be looked back upon as the initial baptism. But the Assemblies don't teach that there is only one but multiple baptisms in the sense that the scriptures say be filled and keep on being filled.


Hi Jeremy
I would be very surprized if it is the case that the assemblies teach multiple baptisms in Spirit. They may well teach multiple or continuous fillings but I would be very surprized if you are right. This is a mischievous question... if tongues are the initial evidence of the initial baptism what are the initial evidences for the subsequent baptisms? :-D

The old formula of Campbell Morgan was:
One Baptism
Many Fillings
Abiding Anointing.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/23 10:58Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37211
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
It's taught at CBC (The A/G's main bible college in the USA) as the outward evidence of an inward experience. Speaking in tongues in other words is not as much proof to the one in which it is taking place as it is to those present.(I am not denying here that it is also proof to the one being baptized. But ideally, what is taking place in the heart should be convincing the subject as much as their speaking in tongues.)


[b]Mark 16:15-18[/b] - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Here Jesus Christ himself tells us the "signs" or "proofs" of those who would belive on Him. Is one more important then the other? Was the "serpent poision" one fulfilled in the apostle paul as matthew henry suggests? Given also that "signs" are for those who don't believe.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/23 10:58Profile





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