| Poster | Thread | jeremyhulsey
Member
Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777
| | Re: | | Quote:
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?
Oops, I knew I wasn't completely clear on that one. Multiple fillings is what I meant. :-)
_________________
Jeremy Hulsey
|
|  2004/9/23 11:01 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
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.(
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1Co 14:21-22 KJV)
Comments?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/9/23 11:22 | Profile | sermonindex
Moderator
Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 38723
Canada
Online! | | Re: | |
The Tongues that he is referring to here is possibly the 'unknown tongue' he refers to in v14 of the same chapter.
[b]1 Corinthians 14:14[/b] - For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
So if his understanding if unfruitful it could refer to him speaking in an language not of this earth something that is not-understandable by the mere carnal mind.
[b]1 Corinthians 13:1[/b] - Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Tongues is a gift of other languages of men and also of angels. The gift of tongues of men has been used directly without interpretation to edify the lost as an evangelistic sign. The tongues of angels will not edify unbelievers and will cause them to be confused. So I believe the 'tongues' you are refering to in that passage is the tongues of angels and is for the body of Christ to edify itself and glorify God.
perhaps I have no idea what I am talking about but im throwing this out there.
_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
|
| | 2004/9/23 11:36 | Profile | sermonindex
Moderator
Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 38723
Canada
Online! | | Re: | | Quote:
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1Co 14:21-22 KJV)
Judgement passage from Isaiah.. nice Ron! I fell for it.. hmm back to the drawing board on this one. Isaiah 28:11-12
_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
|
| | 2004/9/23 11:39 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
perhaps I have no idea what I am talking about but im throwing this out there.
Is this what the scripture means by good and honest ground?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/9/23 11:56 | Profile | jeremyhulsey
Member
Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777
| | Re: | | Quote:
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1Co 14:21-22 KJV)
Comments?
We're getting off the subject of initial evidence, which is not the subject of this passage of scripture. Rather we going into the realm of the propper use of the gifts of the Spirit in a meeting of believers.
"Paul is still challenging the Corinthians' use of [i]uninterpreted[/i] toungues in the assembly. Not only are they incapable of edifying the church, but, he now goes on to explain, they have disastrous effects on unbelievers as well. Despite some notorious difficulties involving v22 the structure of teh present argument makes it plain that the single issue being taken up is the effect of tongues on unbelievers:
Exhortation: Redirect your thinking(about the function of toungues)
OT text: Tongues do not lead people to obedience
Application: So the-
Assertion 1 Tongues a sign not for belivers
but for unbelievers
Assertion 2 Prophecy a sign not for unbelievers
but for believers
V21:
Paul begins the redirecting of their thinking by adapting a passage from Isa 28:11-12, which he introduces as a citation from "the Law." The citation itself is not precise; it seems to have been chosen for two reasons: the occurrence of the language "oter tongues" and the fact that in the OT context this "speaking in tongues" by foreigners served as judgment against those who would not hear straight talk(from the prophet). To underscore his concerns Paul adapts the Isaiah passage in four ways. (1) He inverts the order of "stammering lips" and "other tongues" to put his interest, "other tongues," in first position. (2) He changes "stammering lips" to "the lips of others"; the "others" now being the Corinthian believers, whose speaking in tongues would have a deleterious effect on unbelievers. (3) In keeping with the MT, but against the LXX, Paul alters "the Lord will speak" to "I will speak" and concludes with the formula, "says the Lord," probably to increase its impact on the Corinthians. (4) Most significantly, he skips a considerable section in the Isaiah passage, picking up at the end of v.12, where he modifies "and they would not hear," referring to the intelligible words of the Lord, to "and even so[referring now to the 'other tongues'] the will not obey me." In Paul's context this refers to the outsiders of v. 23, who on hearing the Corinthians' speaking in toungues would declare them mad. For Paul such a reaction by unbelievers would thus "fulfill" this "word of the Lord"; tongues will not lead them to obedience. To the contrary, unintelligibility leads to their judgment--in a time of grace when they need to hear a clear word about Christ.
V.22
With the strong inferential conjunction, "so then," Paul deduces two antithetical assertions from teh Isaiah passage just quoted. But what he says has become a notorious crux. The problem is twofold: (1) the meaning of "sign," including whether he intended it to be repeated for the second assertion, and if so, what it also meant there; and (2) how to square what is said here with the illustration. As noted above, the solution to this lies chiefly in the recognition that Paul's point in the paragraph is made in vv. 23-25 and especiall in the way v. 23 "fulfills" the Isaiah passage. This means that, contrary to many interpretations, this text (v.22) needs to be understood in light of what follows, not the other way around.
The first assertion flows directly out of the quote: "Tongues are for a sign not for believers but for unbelievers." Although it cannot be finally proven, the flow of the argument from v. 20, including the strong "so then" of this sentence, suggests that Paul is settin up this atithesis with the Corinthians' own point of view in mind. That is, "In contratst to what you think, this word of the Lord from Isaiah indicates that tongues are not meant as a sign for believers. They are not, as you make them, the divine evidence of being, or of the presence of God in your assembly. To the contrary, in the public gathering, uninterpreted tongues function as a sign for unbelievers." The question for us is, what kind of sign? In light of v. 21, for which this is the inferential deduction, "sign" in this first sentence can functions only in a negative way. That is, it is a "sign" that functions to the disadvantage of unbelievers, not to their advantage.
Paul is using the word in a way that is quite in keeping with his Judaic background, where "sign" functions as an expression of God's attitude; something "signifies" to Israel either God's disapproval or pleasure. In this case, his disapproval is in view; but not in the sense that God intends unbelievers during this time of grace to receive his judgment. To the contrary, tongues function that way as the result of their effect on the unbeliever, as the illustration in v. 23 will clarify. Because tongues are unintelligible, unbelievers receive no revelation from God; they cannot thereby be brought to faith. Thus by regarding the work of the Spirit--tongue--as madness, they are destined for diving judgment--just as in the OT passage Paul has quoted. This, of course is not the divine intent for such people; hence, Paul's urgency is for the Corinthians to cease thinking like children, to stop the public use of tongues without interpretation, since it only drives the unbeliever away rather than leading him or her to faith.
With a balancing antithetical clause Paul adds that "prophecy, however," also functions as a sign, but "not for unbelievers, but for believers." With this sentence he resumes the contrast between tongues and prophecy that was last expressed in vv.1-6 (although it is alluded to in v. 19 in anticipation of this argument). This is also the clause where all the difficulties have arisen, because in the illustration that corresponds to this assertion (vv.24-25) he does not so much as mention believers, but indicates only how prophecy affects unbelievers. Further he does so in a way that makes one think that it is really a sign for [i]them[/i], that is to [i]their[/i] advantage.
The solution again lies first of all in the nature of the conflict between Paul and the Corintians. Contrary to their preference for tongues, he is asserting that it is prophecy, with its intelligibliity and revelatory character, that funcitons as the sign of God's approval, of God's presence in their midst. The evidence of this is to be found in the very way that it affects unbelievers. By revelatory word of prophecy unbelievers are convinced of their sins, and falling on their faces before God they will exclaim that "God is really among you!" That exclamation as response to prophecy is a "sign" for believers, the indication of God's favor resting upon them
Thus tongues and prophecy function as "signs" in two different ways, precisely in accord with the effect each will hane on unbelievers who happen into the Christian assembly."
-Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence-
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. 8-)
In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey
P.S. Now I have to go run some errands :-o .
_________________
Jeremy Hulsey
|
| | 2004/9/23 12:23 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
-Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence-
I'm going to have to read this again; he seems to be heading in two different directions at the same time.
It is interesting that Fee, in his 'How to Read the Bible for all it is worth' has a section on the hermeneutics of Acts in which he asks whether the descriptions of the primitive church are intended to present the 'norm' to the church at all times. He asks 'just what role does historical precedent play in Christian doctrine or in the understanding of Christian experience?' His subsequent reasoning p105-112 specifically raises the issue of 'some movements and denominations (which) were founded partly on the premise that virtually all New Testament patterns should be restored as fully as possible in modern times... for example, for the reception of the Spirit to be evidenced by the accompanying gift of tongues...'
Although Fee is AoG it doesn't sound as if he is convinced about official AoG doctrine on tongues?
Did you get your errands done?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/9/23 13:32 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
Although Fee is AoG it doesn't sound as if he is convinced about official AoG doctrine on tongues?
Fee is not classical Pentecostal, even though he is a/g. It is my understanding that he does not subscribe to the doctrine of a second work of grace subsequent to conversion.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2004/9/23 17:05 | Profile | jeremyhulsey
Member
Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777
| | Re: | | I disagree with Gordon Fee's view on Acts in that he believes that it can't be used to develope theology. He is at odds with a large majority of pentecostal theologians on this point. His exegesis of ICor 12-14 however is excellent.
The basic thrust of this passage according to Fee is that tongues are not to be a sign to believers as they are to unbelievers [i]in that it is perceived to be a proof of God's favor and presence[/i]. That is, in the mystery religions that were developing and other pagan religions surrounding the Corinthian Christians an exstatic speech was a sign that their god was present. Apparently the Corinthian Christians, possessing the true gift of tongues, assumed that this gift also was proof to them that God was present. However, this was a cause for discord in the assemblies of believers that would cause unbelievers not to believe the message of the cross, thinking that the Christians were mad just like those involved in the pagan religions.
The sign that God was among them was to be [b]prophecy[/b]. This is also the true sign to unbelievers. vv. 24-25 "But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report [i]God is truly among you.[/i]"
In other words, tongues were what unbelievers thought proved their god was among them but prophesying is the sign to believers that God was truly among them and would also prove that to unbelivers.
In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey
P.S. I finished my errands for the day...lol.
_________________
Jeremy Hulsey
|
| | 2004/9/23 17:57 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Hi Jeremy
Quote:
I disagree with Gordon Fee's view on Acts in that he believes that it can't be used to develop theology. He is at odds with a large majority of pentecostal theologians on this point. His exegesis of ICor 12-14 however is excellent.
I don't think that is quite what Fee is saying. (BTW I have problems with quite a few of his conclusions in this particular book) I think he is saying that although we can identify principles we need to be cautious about setting things in stone and making them absolutes. I'm with you, in that I believe all scripture.. is profitable for doctrine; including the Acts.
Quote:
The basic thrust of this passage according to Fee is that tongues are not to be a sign to believers as they are to unbelievers in that it is perceived to be a proof of God's favor and presence.
This is an ingenious solution except for the fact that Paul is quoting a Hebrew prophet who was speaking quite specifically about unbelieving Israelites; Nay, but by men of strange lips and with another tongue will he speak to this people; to whom he said, This is the rest, give ye rest to him that is weary; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (Isa 28:11-12 ASV) It seems to me that the events at the home of Cornelius were a classic illustration of this point. The 'un-believing believers' ie the Jewish converts who still thought salvation was only available to the Jew, were utterly convinced by the sign of tongues. The effect on the folks back in Jerusalem is consistent; Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Act 11:16-18 KJV) The tongues had convinced them that God had included them in His plans for salvation. So more unbelieving-believers were convinced because of the tongues.
Fee's thought of the influence of mystery religions is 'creative'. (you need to understand that when we call a book-keeper over here 'creative' we mean he is a crook.;-)) It is 100% speculation with no contributing evidence or precedence.
I think what we have in 1 Cor 14 is tongues as a sign to unbelieving-Jews, although that is not their only purpose; and prophecy is a sign to believers irrespective of their background. While unbelieving Jews might be convinced by tongues, unbelieving non-Jews would think they were crazy if the whole church be come together and all speak with tongues. However, if these same unbelieving non-Jews were convicted in their hearts, due to a stream of prophecy which revealed the secrets of their hearts, they would acknowledge that God was in the midst.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/9/23 19:05 | Profile |
|
