Reply to : Chartdoctor
Jonah,really,I am thinking no matter what we say to you ,that you will continue to argue with us.
Funny, I thought the same thing of you. But Chartdoctor, my intent is to address these passages in Acts one at a time, systematically. I want to share why I NO LONGER believe the Bible teaches the necessity of tongues for salvation. You can be persuaded or not...it's up to you. You don't have to argue with me at all. But to me this is a very important passage in light of the Revival Centre doctrine that separates them from ALL other Chrisitians.
I will have one last try,Acts 19 v2 says Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed,And they said unto him,We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.v6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues,and prophesied.
Yeah, I'll get to that verse a little later. I promise I will. What I am trying to do here is just look at what Acts 2 ACTUALLY says.
This is plain enough for most,and confirms that the experience for the 120 is the same as this,after all,we can read to Jonah ,it does say(acts2/v4 ALL WERE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND BEGAN TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES.
Chartdoctor, did you even read my post? You are reading an English translation of a Greek text. The English may imply it was all the 120 but the Greek manuscripts DO NOT support that implication. Rather the Greek text says it was the 11 Apostles ONLY. Chartdoctor, read this snipppet of the article and then tell me where Ian is wrong in his assetion:
"The first four verses of chapter two describe something that wasn't completely unexpected, and wasn't without precedent in Jewish tradition. Jesus very clearly promised to his twelve apostles that "...you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth[9]".
The twelve apostles fully expected to receive some sort of remarkable power, which they understood would be brought about by the presence of the Holy Spirit on them. They expected that this power would enable them to be witnesses[10] to Jesus in Jerusalem, Samaria and beyond. It's crucial that we recognise, before we go further, that the content of the promise was very specific. The passage records, very clearly, that the promise was made in the context of it being fulfilled by and through the twelve apostles alone (see vv. 2-7). Jesus wasn't describing the preaching of the gospel by Christians throughout the Church Age, but the expansion of the gospel message from Jerusalem and the Jews to the Roman Empire and the Gentiles. And the expansion would occur through the activity and authority of the original twelve (less Judas Iscariot, of course). The fulfilment of this specific commission is clearly a primary theme in the early ?Acts' narrative.
However, as we've already determined, Jesus promised a very specific empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, to his twelve apostles alone. It was they who were to act as his witnesses, and it was they who were to be his representatives in Jerusalem, Judea and elsewhere. With this in mind, it's not surprising to discover that the grammar of the passage fully supports this position.
When the current versification of the Bible is removed, the artificial division that separates 1:26 from 2:1-4 disappears. What we find is that the antecedent to the verb ?they-were-filled' (as in "...they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues") is h?deka apost?on: the eleven apostles with whom Matthias had recently been added. As is the case with English, the action of the Greek verb effects the subject of the sentence or passage. In this instance, the grammatical subject of the passage is the eleven apostles. The ?one hundred and twenty' of verse 15 cannot function as the subject of the account. As I mentioned earlier, Luke's Greek is very polished. It's clear, then, that he intended to impress upon his readers that the twelve apostles alone spoke the languages (?tongues') at Pentecost."
If you want the rushing wind and fire,well sorry you were not there,that was the initial outpouring,
Well Chartdoctor, now you are saying that the outpouring on the Day of Pentecost was a 'special event' and not a normative experience at all. ok, it was the intitial outpouring. On that we agree. That is the point entirely. It wasn't a blueprint for eveyone's salvation experiece.
The mocking started right there,in verse 12 and they were all amazed and were in doubt saying one to another,what meaneth this,v13 others mocking said These men are full of new wine.
Obviously if they are going to start mocking and doubting right at the point of the initial outpouring,then it will continue today.
I am not mocking anything. I am taking note of what the text ACTUALLY says rather than letting you use it as a proof-text for a Revivalist doctrine. As I said earlier, I am not attemptiting to dismiss tongues as a gift. I am attempting to show the Bible does not teach (even implicitly) that people should expect to speak in tongues when 'saved'.
A person was told about RECEIVING the Holy Spirit here in Adelaide,about a week ago,and she was a little doubtful,but a day or so later,she wasnt feeling well,and suddenly began to speak in other tongues,God confirmed his word with her.
Nice story. I have no reason to doubt it. But let's stick with what the Bible says for now shall we?
If you are really serious you will get down on your hands and knees and ask God,'WHAT IS THIS TONGUES IN THE BIBLE ALL ABOUT LORD,PLEASE SHOW ME?
Chartdoctor, that's exactly what the Mormons tell me to do about their Book of Mormon. Get down and ask God with a pure heart and he will reveal it. Are you ready to do that? Ask God if the Book of Mormon is true? I am sure God expects you to do a little searching out of tthat for yourself right? Well, let's just stick with the Bible for now shall we?
