Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Speaking in Tongues Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:21/10/2005 5:14 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brett 
THERE IS A GENIUNE EXPERIENCE OF MIRACULUOSLY SPEAKING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE WHEN FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY.BUT THERE IS THE REAL THING.

As I mentioned earlier, I will assume that there is a real thing and will not attempt to discredit your experience (at least in these threads...) so please don't feel the need to justify your experience. I accept that. There is no doubt that the bible teaches there is such a thing as speaking in tongues and as we are utilising the Bible in these threads, I have no desire or reason to attempt to contradict the Bible here. 

Rather I would like to try to discern what the Bible has to say about the role of speaking in tongues in salvation.

WE CANT FIND THE ANSWER IN THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN BECAUSE THEY DESCRIBE EVENTS BEFORE THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN. THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT TO BE GIVEN TILL AFTER JESUS HAS DIED, ROSE AGAIN, ASCENDED AND BE GLORIFIED. SO, WE CANT READ ABOUT PEOPLE RECEIVING THE SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS, CAUSE NO ONE DID. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

Brett, I don't agree with that statement at all. However, as I have said, let's stick with Acts for now and get into that one later on if we need to.

MANY THEOLOGIANS OBJECT TO THIS BY SAYING THAT WE CANT USE ACTS FOR CONSTRUCTING DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT IS MERELY "NARRATIVE". THEY SAY IT JUST A HISTOICAL RECORD TELLING US WHAT DID HAPPEN NOT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, SO FOR DEFINING DOCTRINE WE SHOULD ONLY USE SCRIPTURE THAT IS EXPLICITLY "TEACHING" AND NOT NARRATIVE.

BUT THIS OBJECTION IS TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE IT SAYS IN 1st TIMOTHY 3:16 THAT: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR...... DOCTRINE....".SINCE ACTS IS SCRIPTURE WE CAN THEREFORE USE IT TO DEFINE DOCTRINE, SO, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG OR UNSCRIPTURAL WITH CONSTRUCTING A DOCTRINE OF RECEIVING THE SPIRIT FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS. IN FACT, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, IT IS THE ONLY PART OF THE N.T. THAT YOU CAN DO SO FROM.

Sure. I understand where you're coming from with that. There is little doubt that many use Acts as a place from which to draw doctrine.

WHAT DO WE FIND HAPPENING IN THE BOOK OF ACTS AT THE MOMENT PEOPLE RECEIVE THE SPIRIT? SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

On some ocassions yes. But the point I was making in posting Drew Dixon's article is that this is not always the case. You can ignore that point all you like, but it is still a fact. Not everyone in the book of Acts exhibits tongues at their point of salvation. I know you touch on this later in your post, but whether tongues is always the sign or not (by inference), you simply cannot say that Acts ALWAYS says they spoke in tongues when saved. It's simply not there.

IN ACTS 2, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, WHEN THE FIRST DISCIPLES RECEIVED THE SPIRIT, WHAT DID THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROWD SEE AND HEAR THAT SO AMAZED THEM AND CAUGHT THEIR ATTENTION?DID THEY SEE THE "LOVE" OF THE DISCIPLES? WERE THEY AMAZED COZ THEY SAW THE "PATIENCE" OR "GENTLENESS" OF THE DISCIPLES?NO. IT WAS TONGUES.

Brett, I feel you are looking at these verses as proof-texts for your doctrine, rather than looking at what it actually says. If we are to try to use this a a normative example of someone's salvation then we need to consider a few points.

1.There was the sound of a rushing wind.
2. Tongues of fire appeared over the apostles.
3. The apostles spoke intongues.
4. People heard these tongues as being their own diverse languages.

So, if your belief that Acts 2 is a normative salvation account then we MUST also expect wind, tongues of fire, andimmediate translation of the tongues by someone who naturally speaks that language. But all these things combined NEVER happen doe they? In other words, ACTS 2 IS NORMATIVE FOR NO ONE EXCEPT THE APOSTLES!!! 

But wait! There's more!

Now if I can take this even further and quote Ian Thomason here, who is well versed in Koine Greek, "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") 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 alonespoke the languages ('tongues') at Pentecost."

In other words, the others of the 120 did not have tongues of fire upon them nor did they speak in tongues. This is why most religious art depicting the Day of Pentecostonly shows the Apostles having this experience. This is not an attempt by mainstream churches to denounce the tongues doctrine, such was not even heard of when these paintings were done. Rather their tradition reflects the Greek text.

Now please Brett, Don't skip over this point... According to the Greek, the 120 DID NOT SPEAK IN TONGUES...ONLY THE APOSTLES DID!!!

Then further on the account we read that: The 3000 were baptised and were added to the church. No signs were associated with the believers. Signs were evident, all of which were attributed to and centred on the Apostles. 3000 MORE AND NO TONGUES!!!

So what you have here Brett is not a solid proof-text for your Revivalist doctrine at all. Rather it affirms the opposite that not everyone spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost.As I have said, please don't think this is an attack on your tongues experience. It isn't. Rather it is a challenge to your assumptions and preconceptions (birthed and nurturedin the cult) about speaking in tongues in the Bible.I will continue to answer your further points in other threads.
Warrick 007 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/08/2005 6:47 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:21/10/2005 9:28 PMCopy HTML

The reason and purpose why it was only the disciples that spoke in toungues and not the 120 was so they could communicate Gods message to Israel, and is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned. Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracel-gift of tongues. On the day of penticost there where "Jew's out of every nation under heaven(Acts2:5). And when the disciples "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" the hearers resonded with the question, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born?"(Acts2v8) Observe that they were "Jews" from other countries who spoke many languages and dialects, and yet each heard the Gospel in his own tongue, Isaiahs's prophecy was being fulfilled.

A man died and went to heaven. He was met by Jesus and Jesus began to show him around. As they walked they saw some amazing things. Some too beautiful and amazing to describe. Eventually they came to a huge wall and the man heard the sound of music, laughing and what basically sounded like a party coming from behind the wall. Curious, the man asked Jesus what was going on behind the wall. Jesus answered, "Shhhh!!! Not too loud. That"s the GRC. They think they"re the only ones here!!!"
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:21/10/2005 10:10 PMCopy HTML

In my experience with the tongues focussed doctrine of R/R/Gs et al., it seems that they drag and drop every scripture remotely related to making a sound or speaking a language, phonos, utterances, groanings, tongues, languages,  into the 'ecstatic speech' or 'tongues' folder. But not all these scriptures are necessarity talking about the debatable glossolalia miracle.

It was important at that time to spread the gospel and therefore it was important to be able to cross the language barriers. This is definitely what the bible refers in the following scripture: (I mean it seems pretty clear)

Acts 2:6-12 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?"

Neat trick, but seems to be confined to that initial 'outpouring', except for some urban myths that exist in modern day christendom. Below is the "tongues" of the book of Acts, and as you can see there was nothing "unknown" about it!

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.  (KJV)

other:  Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different

Tongues Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired

When they spoke this tongue, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE!  Not like today's so-called tongues where only another possessed person can think that he understands it.  The Pentecostal Day (Acts ch. 2) tongues were heard and understood by all languages.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 1:36 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : popeWazza2nd

The reason and purpose why it was only the disciples that spoke in toungues and not the 120 was so they could communicate Gods message to Israel, and is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned. Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracel-gift of tongues. On the day of penticost there where "Jew's out of every nation under heaven(Acts2:5). And when the disciples "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" the hearers resonded with the question, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born?"(Acts2v8) Observe that they were "Jews" from other countries who spoke many languages and dialects,

Good point Wazza.  So the tongues were functional and not some kind of 'prayer language'. 

Ian goes on to expound a lot more about the Day of Pentecost at:

http://www.pleaseconsider.info/articles/acts/acts2.htm

A good read...heavy and a bit too academic at times, but a good read.  I suggest you print it off and read it over a nice coffee rather than try to read it online.

Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 9:06 AMCopy HTML

Jonah,really,I am thinking no matter what we say to you ,that you will continue to argue with us. 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.
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. If you want the rushing wind and fire,well sorry you were not there,that was the initial outpouring,
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.
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.
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?
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 1:42 PMCopy HTML

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?

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 1:49 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : popeWazza2nd

The reason and purpose why it was only the disciples that spoke in toungues and not the 120 ,

You  have to realize that these "eleven" were the appointed apostles at that time and as such they are the represented elders of this particular 120 member church that just happened to be meeting in that upper chamber..  Ian Thomason is quite correct and you have to realize that the whole objective of the first couple of chapters of Acts is about recording the first ever major outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Day  of Pentecost on a church of believers or disciples and as such it is also a pattern of how that gentlemanly third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit works in genuine revival.. First it is the elders and thereby it is established that this is indeed the authority of God being displayed here, that God generally works through first and then the rest of the congregation will receive the fire from heaven... Yes the "gift" in an outpouring of power is available to all but The Holy Spirit has established a pattern here of how he works in co-operation with the authority of the "local" church. If the elders are not open to receiving a move from God, guess what ?? that church misses out on a move of God...  Of course anyone can receive the Holy Spirit without being attached to a particular church but then as you know from scripture that person is then called into accountability with God Himself ( eg unto whom much is given much is required etc.etc.) for what he has received..

Don't take any thought about what you have ever been taught at the Revival Centres International and their BI off-shoots, the Revival Fellowship, Noel Hollins, Scott Williams etc because they have never really experienced a genuine move of God in the power that is narrated in the second book of Acts....

Always understand that the book of Acts are collections of narratives compiled by Luke. What Ian Thomason has done (and achieved rather well I might add) is to point out the correct narrative in the correct greek prose as it would be presented to be understood in the normal greek text of that time ie the Koine Greek...

anonymous

 

ps I am not Ian Thomason

 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 2:00 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Anonymous

Greeting and welcome to the discussion...


First it is the elders and thereby it is established that this is indeed the authority of God being displayed here, that God generally works through first and then the rest of the congregation will receive the fire from heaven... Yes the "gift" in an outpouring of power is available to all but The Holy Spirit has established a pattern here of how he works in co-operation with the authority of the "local" church.

Now you're reading into the text.  There is nothing in that passage to support your assertion.  And for what it's worth, can you try to stay on track in these threads?

Warrick 007 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/08/2005 6:47 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/10/2005 2:22 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Chartdoctor

MrJ is not out to argue with us, he his looking at the side which the Revival Centers have tryed to hide from your eyes!

It is a mistake to assume that the sign-gifts are given to all believers today. Chartdoctor, can u tell me what happendes to someone in your little groupe, if they dont speak in Toungues for a long periode of time? Are they forced on there nee's meeting after meeting to try to say the magic yapadapadoo, do they feel shame and embarrasment because every one else has the gift but they dont? If after some years they still dont speak in tongues are they asked to stop coming?

All of the above happends to people in the Tongues Base Churches. Really it all comes down to, Speak in Tongues or Sorry you have to leave.

Now i am not closing the door on miracles. God does intervene in supernatural ways performing miracles when and wherever He pleases to do so. The matter before us now is whether or not the Bible teaches that certain gifts where temporarily given. The evidence of Gods Word must be the final source of authority. I am saying this because there are many people who dont know the full meaning of what happened in the book of Acts. And i am sure the things MrJ has just brought up has been a big eye open'a for many in this forum.

Now i am not suggesting that there is no validity in "experience" or "reason". But neither reason nor experience can be accepted as final authority. Someone will argue, "i have had the experience in tongues, I find this experience in the New Testament, therefore my experience is true". Is such an argument really true?? No because it makes experience the basis of truth, so if one does not experience all of the experiences he does not have all the truth. Experience, which is related to our emotions, can be deceptive, but a correct interpretation of Gods Word can never deceive.

Since i left the GRC i have had great pleasure speaking to God in English. Something i never did for the good part of 20 years. I speak to Him in English and He hears and understands me. He Speaks to me in English through His Word, and i understand Him.

So why is there such a big increase wide spread practice of speaking in Tongues? Well i don't have all the answers, but speaking in tongues can be self-induced, speaking in tongues can be group induced, and speaking in tongues can be satanically induced. Where the Devil does not succeed in taking the Bible from us, he works hard at taking us from the Bible. And he succeeds in getting Christains to focus their attention on the claims of men and women to some supernatural experience, and in so doing those seekers after the experiences of others have neither time nor interest in Scriptures of Gods truth.

The Church of Christ does not need a new Bible, nor a new apostle, nor a new faith healer nor a new charismatic movment or self-styled miracle workers. What the Church needs is to return to the Word of God and proclaim the whole counsel of God in the power and love of the Holy Spirit.
Wazza


A man died and went to heaven. He was met by Jesus and Jesus began to show him around. As they walked they saw some amazing things. Some too beautiful and amazing to describe. Eventually they came to a huge wall and the man heard the sound of music, laughing and what basically sounded like a party coming from behind the wall. Curious, the man asked Jesus what was going on behind the wall. Jesus answered, "Shhhh!!! Not too loud. That"s the GRC. They think they"re the only ones here!!!"
Chartdoctor Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2630
  • Posts:127
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/08/2005 1:06 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/10/2005 1:16 PMCopy HTML

Jonah,I do happen to have an orginal Greek text of the new testament,so rather than believe your friends "version or view" of what the Greek reads,it would surely be best to hear the original Greek Acts 2 verse 2/4,it does read a little different than plain English.
Acts chap2 verse
2/4 original Greek reads "And there was suddenly a sound out of heaven a sound being borne of a wind violent and it filled all the house where they were sitting and there appeared to them being distributed tongues as of fire and it sat on one each of them , and they were filled all of(with)Spirit Holy, and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave to speak out them ".
The violent wind,or spirit, filled the house and sat on each of them,and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.
The complete lack of evidence that only the Apostles received the spirit and not the 120 is extremely difficult to comprehend,To conclude that only 12 received the Spirit here,would be warping,twisting,deceiving,malicious,intentionally being deceptive to any new babe in Christ.
Verses 9/11 indicate in any event at least 16 different areas of people who were present and that is only in the singular 16 is obviously more than 12 and the apostles were not from those areas so they were in addition,understand that they were not only speaking in tongues but prophesying,and that has to be in the language of the people who were present,and that can,under the influence of the Holy Spirit be spoken by someone who cannot fluently speak that language,which has been evidenced by others at this present time in pentecostal churches.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/10/2005 1:51 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Chartdoctor

As a teacher of language, let me give you a little lesson in ENGLISH grammar first.

If I were to write, "My friends went to the station at 1:30 PM.  It was not long after that that I saw them,"

Them would refer whom?  It would refer to my friends.  Why?  Because according to English grammar, the pronoun would refer to the person last mentioned.  In this case, the object of the sentence, them, is my friends.  Now that is a grammar rule for English.  There are many more that my students, speakers of English as a second language, butcher with regularity as they learn the language.

OK, so now we need to look at the Greek rules of grammar.  We cannot assume that modern Greek, let alone a first century form of Greek, has the same, or even simialr grammar rules to our 21st century form of English.  We would need to learn the grammar as well as the vocabulary to be able to translate the Greek text properly.  So for you to say you have a read a Greek translation, concerns me a little.  However, in this cae the grammar IS the same...luckily for you.

Anyway, My Thomason has studied Greek and so is far more able to comment than you or I:

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."

But even looking at the English translation, them refers to the apostles.  Go back through Acts 1:1 to Acts 2:5 and see for yourself.  Are you even looking?

I suggest you search the internet, commentaries or even contact someone at the UPC to argue the above comment by Mr Thomason.  Unitl then, it still stands...no matter what you or I want to believe.

Warrick 007 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/08/2005 6:47 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/10/2005 2:29 PMCopy HTML

reply to- i am not Ian T


When the diciples where filled with the spirit and all spoke in different languages, a large crowd quickly gathered. Those in the crowd not only heard all sorts of languages, they each heard their own language. For some of them this really must have been especially weird, knowing how few were there from their own land. And for someone to think and say "THATS my language", it not only would have had to be there languuage, but often their own village or city's dialect. Getting to all those languages and dialects right would be tough even for the most expert modern speakers of language. God cared enough to get the gospel message to them in each persons own language! This could not have been done by those who spoke. This was the work of the Spirit on each of the speakers and on each of those in the crowd that were open enough to let the spirit work.

In Acts 2, the point about the tongues was not what was said, but what was understood by those who heard it, namely, the Gospel of Christ, for the first time ever.

The spirit was interpreting whatever it was that the apostles spoke. Its like at those United Nations events where the speaker gives a speech in their own language or language of their choice, and the ambassadors and guests hear through earphones a accurate translation of what is being said. The Spirit was an earphone translator for those who were there.

When someone says that a person is not "truly" reborn unless that person has spoken in tongues, it is this half-baked half-saved idea, one which gives a lot of space for spiritual pride and us vs them,(a family member in this room said to me that when they see me again it would not be a happy time because of my deep searching of the word i am changeing my RC'S beleif on tongues, i was over joyed to maybe catch up, but now because i have a different veiw, it wont be a happy time! If its going to be like why bother catching up?)

I should also add that studies show that a large proportion of Charismatic and Pentecostalist do not speak in Tongues. Many of these are incredible Christians with a deep and infectious love for the Lord. If you are a pentecostalist, you probably know and respect many of them, though you don't know they don't speak in tongues. What about them? Has God rejected them?
A man died and went to heaven. He was met by Jesus and Jesus began to show him around. As they walked they saw some amazing things. Some too beautiful and amazing to describe. Eventually they came to a huge wall and the man heard the sound of music, laughing and what basically sounded like a party coming from behind the wall. Curious, the man asked Jesus what was going on behind the wall. Jesus answered, "Shhhh!!! Not too loud. That"s the GRC. They think they"re the only ones here!!!"
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/10/2005 2:42 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MrJonah

Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

How you whittled it down to 12 is semantics. These 120 were the people being spoken about. The bit about Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is a bit of a 'by the way' information.

The crowd present wanted to know what "this" meant. What caught their attention was tongues. Peter stood up and said this was the Holy Spirit as prophesied by Joel.

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/10/2005 5:30 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : MrJonahActs 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)How you whittled it down to 12 is semantics. These 120 were the people being spoken about. The bit about Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is a bit of a 'by the way' information.The crowd present wanted to know what "this" meant. What caught their attention was tongues. Peter stood up and said this was the Holy Spirit as prophesied by Joel.

*SIGH*

In my Bible the bit about the 120 is in brackets. 

*SIGH*

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:24/10/2005 7:25 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

This can only refer to the disciples present - that is 120.v 24 kai proseuxamenoi eipon - again very simple grammar.

Well there you go.  Pilnut has found a contradictory source.  I guess anyone who really want to know will have to do some further research and post it here.  I'm tired.

But the issue of the wind and tongues of fire still makes it a non-normative account don't you think?  How about an answer for that one?

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:25/10/2005 9:29 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : MrJonahPilnut has found a contradictory source.I used the Greek text.But the issue of the wind and tongues of fire still makes it a non-normative account don't you think? How about an answer for that one?the wind and tongues of fire are only mentioned in Acts 2, so they are not normative but speaking in tongues accompanied the infilling of the Spirit in Acts 2, 10 and 19. Wind and fire accompanied great events in Israel's history. Wind is mentioned in Gen 2:7with regard tothe creation of man, and Ezek 37:5, 14 with the revival of Israel. Acts 2:4 is the fulfillment of that. In both OT examples it was a one-of.Fire was a sign of God's presence. He led the children of Is

Luke establishes in verse 15 that the number of disciples present was 120. No reputable scholar has said anything different. Horward Marshall (Tyndale NT Commentary - Acts - 2000 ed) on page 64 quotes R.P.C. Hanson (The Acts - New Clarendon Bible - Oxford - 1967) as the possible reason for including the number was because under Jewish law a minimum of 120 Jewish men were required to establish a new community with its own council.

I must beg to differ with your assertion at this point . C.K. Barrett, the author of the two-volume International Critical Commentary (which serves as the standard grammatical commentary on the Greek text of Acts) muses that the referent should not be simply assumed to be the 120, but that the more likely grammatical candidate is the twelve. Further F.F. Bruce, who prior to his death was viewed as the dean of evangelical scholars, himself a Classicist by training, highlights this grammatical feature in his own commentary on the Greek text (3rd edition, published by Eerdmans in 1990). Ian Howard Marshall's commentary to which you refer was intended for a 'popular' audience, and so comments on the English rather than on the Greek text. You might be interested to learn that I had cause to briefly correspond with Dr Marshall on this very subject several years ago. His statements to me at the time went along the line that this particular passage has been interpreted more as a consequence of popular ecclesiastic tradition, than of strictly rigorous grammatical exegesis. Further, of the Greek reference grammars in my private library which directly address this issue, all indicate that the grammatical referent is the twelve rather than the 120. So unless you are fully informed concerning the current state of 'reputable' scholarship on the subject, it might be wise to avoid making emotive (and misleading) statements like, "No reputable scholar has said anything differently." The statement simply isn't true, and it certainly isn't warranted.

Now to respond to your comment that 120 men were required to establish a new community with a minor Sanhedrin. I would state, 'not necessarily'. The Babylonian Talmud provides the basis for this belief (I believe in the tractate, 'Sanhedrin'), but the BT was codified around 300-400 years after the time in question. What we do know for certain, however, is that 12 men were required to establish a Synagogue during the 1st century in Palestine. But I believe the principle issue with this passage, though, relates to the theological intent behind the requirement for there being 12 apostles in the first place. The issue, as I understand it, revolves around Jesus Christ re-forming a 'New Israel', within a 'New Covenant' context (obvious allusions to Isaiah and Ezekiel), which itself hearkens back to God's actions forming the first Israel around twelve tribes at Sinai. Incidently, both occurred at what has become known as Pentecost. Further, if Luke intended for us to understand that the 120 were overshadowed in the same fashion as the twelve, then (a) why did he record Jesus' specific promise of this event being directed to the apostles specifically? (b) Why did he state that Peter stood with the eleven immediately after the epiphany, rather than with the 120? (c) Why is there no reference whatsover to the 3,000 repeating the process later that day. And (d), why does Luke single out the apostles when he records the miraculous being linked with the reception of the Holy Spirit throughout the book of Acts? These all point towards one of Luke's principle reasons for penning 'Acts' in the first place.

Now, onto the strictly grammatical!

Verses 16 to 22 are Peter's words to this group of 120.

This is true.

v 23 kai estesan - and they set forth. - simple grammar 1st aorist 3rd person plural. This can only refer to the disciples present - that is 120.

Again, perfectly true. But I'd caution you against assuming 'simplicity' when it comes to Greek grammar, especially when considering only parts of selected pericopae in isolation.

v 24 kai proseuxamenoi eipon - again very simple grammar. This is not remotely technical. proseuxamenoi - present participle = action happening at the same time as the main verb which is eipon. 2nd aorist, third person plural. in other words they said. Again this can only be referring to the 120.

Okay, as someone who teaches Undergraduates koine Greek, I'm somewhat surprised to discover that you believe verse 24 to be "...very simple grammar", and, "[T]his is not remotely technical." Participles remain the most complex part of speech to exegete properly, and the area which causes students the most angst when learning to 'do' Greek exegesis! And if you don't mind me asking (simply out of interests' sake), how much Greek learning have you had, and in what context did you gain it?  

v 26 kai edokan and they gave theit lots. aorist - third person plural. The subject of that verb must still be the group which was identified as having 120 members.

Again, agreed.

Then you say that eleven apostles is the noun which is the precedent for Acts 2:1. According to you that noun must be in the nominative case.

Did I state that the noun must be in the nominative case?  In my essay at 'PleaseConsider', I state that a pronoun must refer to an antecedent (noun), and that they must 'agree' grammatically. This remains true, irrespective of case.

"With the eleven apostles" ton endeka apostolon is genitive. Of course Greek students know that "meta with the genitive means with" but your argument that eleven apostles is nominative falls flat.

I don't recall stating that 'ton hendeka [please don't forget to represent an aspirate given above a vowel with an 'h' sound] apostolon' appeared in the nominative at all. The fact that the definite article is inflected 'ton' clearly identifies the case to be genitive.  But the fact that the clause is articular also identifies something quite important, I trust you would agree ;o)

Acts 2:1 esan - they were. As "they" must be the group that was identified in 1:15 as having 120 members and that in Acts 1:23, 24 and 26 the only "they" that are referred to is a group of 120. Acts 2:1 follows immediately after Acts 1:26 so there is no basis for assuming that "they" are the eleven only.

And it is here where I believe your understanding of Greek grammar is just a tad too 'mechanistic' and 'simplistic'.  Could you please explain for me, grammatically, just why it is that you believe 'esan' must refer to the 120? 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:27/10/2005 2:16 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : AnonymousI haveneither the time nor inclination to debate the point with Ian. I know he can run rings around my Greek but whether he can identify the finer points of Greek grammar or not I still think he's missed the point. A man might ask a child and an English professor to do something and while the child is obeying him the professor is busy parsing the entire statement. Analysing it for participles and subjunctive clauses etc and writing great long dissertations about it. He may well be able to explain why it is unnecessary to actually do what he was asked to do but he's still not doing what he was asked.

OK, so let's leave it there then. 

In summary, I presented two main points:

1. The Day of Pentecost cannot be presented as a normative salvation experience unless one also includes the tongues of fire and mighty wind.

2. According to the Greek text, only the 12 (not the 120) spoke in tongues and had the other manifestations.

Wazza also added that:

3. For Pentecost to be normative then the tongues must also be interpreted by people listening.  As he said the miracle was in the speaking and in the HEARING.

In defence of the Revivalist position,

A. Pilnut quoted a commentary arguing the validity of point #2.

(Pillnut, please add anything you want in closing from you and your hubby and we'll move on to the next point.)

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:08/11/2005 5:45 PMCopy HTML

$%*'`[brett]%*'`@

From Brett

fficeffice" /> 

Well, I'm back to continue the debate/dialogue about tongues that we were involved in,that unfortuanetly for me , got sidetracked by a misunderstanding with another poster.

 In this post I'll focus on responding to the point made that only the 12 Apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost and that the reason they did was only so they could preach to many different people.

  Appeals have been made to the original Greek to make us believe that only the Apostles spoke in tongues and not all the 120 that were with the Apostles.

Despite the detailed explanation of the Greek given to prove this point, I am unconvinced and skeptical.

 You certainly DON'T get the impression that only the Apostles spoke in tongues by a simple straight forward reading of the English text.

 In Acts 1 v. 15 it says " Peter stood up among the believers ( a group numbering about 120) and said...".

  So Peter is standing in a meeting 120 people, not 11, and everything he says and does in the following verses is among those 120 believers.

 In those following verses where we read " they" did this, " they" decided that, " they" cast lots, it is natural to assume that the " they" are the 120, since we've been told this is a meeting of 120 believers and that Peter IS ADDRESSING THE 120.

  It is the same " they" who in Acts 2 verses 1 to 4 all end up speaking in tongues.

 

However, even though that is the way you understand it when you read the English, it just can't be what it means!

Apparently our English Bibles are totally and hopelessly misleading us in this passage and so we will have to depend on certain Greek scholars to know what it really means because what we think we're reading in English is misleading.

 Even though our English Bibles were translated by competent and skilled Greek scholars so we could have an accurate and reliable English translation that gives us the sense of the original Greek, it seems that those competent and skilled scholars didn't do a good job here and have mislead us all.

 I have encountered Greek scholars insisting on a point of translation and grammar to prove a theological point who were refuted by other Greek scholars as being in error.

  I'm sure that is the case here.

 

I have commentaries by theologians, learned in Greek, who all say that it was all the 120 who spoke in tongues.

I've read numerous statements by Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican and other commentators that it was the 120 who spoke in tongues.

Even my own wife, who has been doing a course on New Testament Greek (and has achieved excellent grades) has been able to refute the allegation that it was only the 12 and not the 120, by referring to the Greek grammar in the passage.

 But of course she must be totally ruled out of any discussion of the Greek coz she is only a missionary housewife!

 How dare a mere missionary wife challenge the allegations of a member of that elite class of people, the Greek scolars!

 How dare any of us " ordinary" and " unlearned" believers even presume to question those who are so learned and far above and beyond us in knowledge and understanding!

One simply must not challenge the elite!!

Don't get me wrong though.

Greek scholars are absolutely necessary and essential.

Without them we wouldn't have an English Bible, so I can assure you that I do respect, appreciate and value Greek Bible scholars.

However, they are not beyond the temptation to make a passage say what they want it to say when they want it to agree with their theological views.

 

 So I am skeptical regarding the argument that has been advanced.

I think it's a very clever argument, ( it really made me think!), but it is not correct.

 But, I will go along with the argument and make my following points on the assumption that it was only the 12 Apostles who spoke in tongues at Pentecost and not the 120 and see where that will lead.

  Even if it was the Apostles, as we look carefully at what Peter said on the day of Pentecost and at other statements by him in other parts of Acts, we will see that he expected everybody who received the Spirit to receive the same way he did: with tongues. Everybody.

 I will explain this in my next post.

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:08/11/2005 5:47 PMCopy HTML

$%*'`[brett]%*'`@

From Brett

fficeffice" /> 

I am presuming that the only the 12 Apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2 v.4.

  Peter was one of those Apostles.

What did he think about what he had just experienced?

What was the meaning and significance of it for him?

 He tells us in his sermon in Acts 2.

 

A crowd had gathered, amazed and troubled by the sight and sound of the Apostles speaking in tongues.

Verse 12: " Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ".

 They wanted to know what was the meaning and significance of the speaking in tongues they were hearing.

This is an important point.

They were not amazed and perplexed by the rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire above the heads of the Apostles, they were NOT asking " what is the meaning of that wind and those tongues of fire above your heads?"

Obviously those things had ceased by the time they gathered where the Apostles were, coz THE ONLY THING THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT WAS THE SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

This indicates that they didn't hear the wind or see the tongues of fire, those things had only been for the Apostles and had come and gone by the time the crowd came to investigate.

However, they could see and hear the Apostles speaking in tongues and THAT was what they wanted to know about.

They wanted to know what is the meaning and significance of tongues.

 

 Peter ( verse 14 ) stands up and gives them the answer to their question.

He is going to explain to them what speaking in tongues is.

He does so by quoting the prophet Joel.

 Verse 16 - " This ( the speaking in tongues) is what was spoken by the prophet Joel....in the last days.....says God...I will pour out my spirit on all people...".

 Peter is telling them that the speaking in tongues that they could see and hear is the outpouring of the Spirit for everybody in the last days.

I.e, "this", the speaking in tongues, is the gift of God's Spirit for all people in the last days.

What he is saying is that it will be by speaking in tongues that ALL PEOPLE in the last days will have God's Spirit poured out on them.

He is saying that the infilling of the Spirit WITH TONGUES is for every single person, " all people", " in the last days".

 Obviously he didn't think that what he had just received was only for himself and 11 other Aostles  only, so they could preach to many different people, but rather was FOR EVERYBODY IN THE LAST DAYS.

 

  Are we in the last days now?

   Are we?

 

It is curious that certain Christian commentators opposed to tongues, will say that the tongues experienced by the Apostles at Pentecost was only for them, only for the first century, and at the same time they tell us that we are now living in the last days.

 Well, if indeed we are now in the last days, then that means that the very same experience that Peter and the other Apostles had at Pentecost, is available for every single person who comes to Christ NOW.

 This also obviously implies that when Peter and the others spoke in tongues at Pentecost, they DID NOT see it as a special, unique ability only for them so they could preach to many foreigners in their own languages.

 

What the Apostles experienced at Pentecost is for "all people" " in the last days".

AGAIN I ASK , ARE WE LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS NOW OR NOT ?

 

Admittedly, Peter's quote of Joel mentions visions and dreams, and obviously the crowd didn't see the Apostles having dreams and visions.

In verse 18, Peter says that when God pours out his spirit on His servants, both men and women, THEY WILL PROPHECY.

I believe that " prophesying" is speaking in tongues, prophetic praise, worship and prayer, inspired directly and supernaturally by the Holy Spirit within.

If it is not referring to speaking in tongues,then where does Joel's prophecy speak of tongues?

According to Peter, Joel spoke about speaking in tongues, so where is Joel's reference to tongues?

If it's not in the " they shall prophecy" then it's nowhere in the passage and Peter didn't know what he was talking about.

So based on what Peter said about tongues, they would be the required sign to accompany the outpouring of the Spirit.

 

  We are also told that 3,000 people were converted and baptized by Peter's message, but anti tongues commentators tell us that those 3,000 did not receive what Peter and the Apostles had received, even though Peter had told them that what he had received was for ALL PEOPLE IN THE LAST DAYS.

     Let's examine this allegation.

In verse 39 Peter tells the 3,000 that they would receive the " promise".

The " promise" Peter told them they ALL could receive was the same promise he had referred to in verse 33; "..the promise of the Holy Spirit" which they could all see and hear happening, and that means tongues.

 So Peter is telling the 3,000 that they would all receive the promise of the Holy Spirit which they had all SEEN and HEARD.

 Was peter telling them that they would all experience a rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire above their heads?

 No. When they received the promised Holy Spirit, they would also experience what they had seen and heard in the Apostles; speaking in tongues.

 In verse 41 we're told that they "received" Peter's message and got baptized.

Peter had told them to repent, but verse 41 doesn't mention their repentance.

Are we to believe that they didn't repent?

Likewise, Peter had told them that they would receive the promise of the Spirit, which they had seen and heard, which means that he's telling them that they would receive the same thing as he had. The Spirit with tongues.

Even though it doesn't say in verse 41 that they received the infilling, we can be certain that they all would have been led to seek the experience by the Apostles.

 

 There are other passages that prove that Peter believed that tongues was the required and expected sign of receiving.

 

In Acts 10 Peter was told to go and preach the Gospel to Cornelius and his friends.

As Peter was preaching to them they all received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

There were believers from Joppa who had accompanied Peter.

He said to them in verse 47 "..they ( Cornelius and co.) have received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE...".

Obviously the other believers from Joppa had received the Spirit the same way Peter had and Cornelius had received the same way also. They had all spoken in tongues.

  As for the argument that the tongues in Acts 2 was only for preaching, was Cornelius and his friends preaching to Peter? Were the 12 men who received with tongues when Paul prayed for them preaching to Paul in Acts 19?

In the next chapter, 11, Peter arrives in ffice:smarttags" />Jerusalem and is confronted by the church.

"So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him..."

Note that it is not just the 11 Apostles who are contending with Peter, but the believers, the whole church in Jerusalem.

In verses 15 and 16 Peter explains that Cornelius and co.had received the same  baptism in the Spirit that they all had received.

Verse 15 can be translated from the Greek without the definite article "...the Holy Spirit fell on them as he came on us when we began..."

Who are the "us" that Peter refers to?

Not just the 12 Apostles, but all the believers that Peter is addressing, the whole church.

He is not just addressing those who had been present at Pentecost almost 4 years earlier, but the entire church, so every member of the church had received the same way Cornelius had. With tongues.

 

 Likewise, in Acts 15, many years later, Peter is again addressing the WHOLE CHURCH in Jerusalem, and is reminding them how Cornelius and co. had received the Spirit years before. ".....God ....showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them JUST AS HE DID TO US...". Verse 8.

Then in verse 12, after hearing Peter's address " the whole assembly became silent....'.

So the "us" Peter is referring to is the entire church not just the 12 Apostles.

 Clearly, every member of the church had received the Spirit the same way the Apostles had received at Pentecost.

  In conclusion, the fact is that as far as Peter was concerned, speaking in tongues would be the evidence of the outpouring or receiving of the Spirit for "all people" "in the last days". Therefore, "all people" that received the Spirit in the Apostolic church spoke in tongues as Peter said would be the case in Acts 2.

 Regardless of whether we still believe in tongues or not, whatever our present stand may be about it, it is an interesting and revealing fact, that all who post on this forum spoke in tongues when the Spirit was poured out on them.

We may now wish to explain away what happened to us as "induced", "suggestion", "delusion" or whatever, but the fact remains that the Apostle Peter said that tongues would be the gift of the Spirit for " all people" in these "last days", whether we like it or not.

Warrick 007 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/08/2005 6:47 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:08/11/2005 7:02 PMCopy HTML

Brett i know 100's of people from my Old church who where told they where speaking in tongues, but to be truthful to you when i say this, they really where saying the same ten or so words over and over again, year in year out with little or no change.Now is this really the sign of the Holy Spirit?

Now when i say this i am attacking u, or the HolySpirit or what you still wish to beleive from your indoctrination from the GRC, I'm just stateing  a common and simply fact.
But i do know that when some one REALLY gets the GIFT of tongues its clear, fluent, and ever changing.

A man died and went to heaven. He was met by Jesus and Jesus began to show him around. As they walked they saw some amazing things. Some too beautiful and amazing to describe. Eventually they came to a huge wall and the man heard the sound of music, laughing and what basically sounded like a party coming from behind the wall. Curious, the man asked Jesus what was going on behind the wall. Jesus answered, "Shhhh!!! Not too loud. That"s the GRC. They think they"re the only ones here!!!"
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:08/11/2005 7:07 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : brett [Anonymous]

You said:


he didn't think that what he had just received was only for himself and 11 other Aostles only, so they could preach to many different people

and...

that means that the very same experience that Peter and the other Apostles had at Pentecost, is available for every single person who comes to Christ NOW.


The bible says:

Acts 2:6-12 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

The interesting part is that the legend was "noised abroad". Legend spread and people came together because something astounding was happening. Also interesting is that this experience is not the same experience that happens in the G/R/R or anywhere today. A heap of people speaking gibberish would hardly be considered miraculous.

Your 'belief' Joel's prophesy re the Spirit's pouring:



I believe that " prophesying" is speaking in tongues, prophetic praise, worship and prayer, inspired directly and supernaturally by the Holy Spirit within.


What does the bible say?:

When a prophet, such as Joel, spoke he was expounding the word of God. The propets were called thusly because they went around prophesying... sure they would have been praising God too but they weren't known as 'praisers'.

Bible definition of PROPHET (click here)

What you believe, your opinion... according to your comment, is that Joel spoke about prophesying as praise and that all would receive a gibberish praise language... did Joel really say that!?? That is reading more into the bible than is there... twisting scripture to fit your theory that the disciples spoke supernatural gibberish. They were prophesying while speaking in tongues, miraculously meaning all language barriers were being crossed (proclaiming the gospel...  Acts 2: ...and "every man heard them speak in his own language."

What does a dictionary say?

proph?t n.

1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
a. Prophets (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Used with the. See Table at Bible.
b. Prophet One of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, especially one believed to be the author of one of these books. Used with the.

Are we in the last days?
 
That depends on whether you ascribe to a futurist, historist, preterist etc view of bible prophesy.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:08/11/2005 7:31 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : brett [Anonymous]

Regardless of whether we still believe in tongues or not, whatever our present stand may be about it, it is an interesting and revealing fact, that all who post on this forum spoke in tongues when the Spirit was poured out on them.

What the? ... hmmm, I don't think the word 'fact' means what you think it means.

I know wazza's and my testimonys in the other thread ignored by you so far discredit that FACT... and I know many more to that are outside of your factual warped reality. that's a fact.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:16/11/2005 5:06 AMCopy HTML

$%*'`[woohoo]%*'`@

You don't have to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit

fficeffice" /> 

The Bible says quite clearly that a person must have the Holy Spirit to be saved :

 

Romans 8:9      "...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

John 3:5                       "...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of

God."

 

We know from Bible text that being born of water is Baptism by full immersion (Matt ffice:smarttags" />3:16).  The question is "What is being born of the Spirit ?".  The Bible says that EVERYONE that is born of the spirit has a PHONOS (sound/noise/voice/language), not just fruits (John 3:8).

 

In the passage of Scripture starting from John 3:1 and ending John 3:7, the word "Pneuma" in the Greek is always translated as "Spirit".  In fact every time the word "Pneuma" is used in the New Testament (with exception of two cases) it is always translated as "Spirit".  One notable exception and obviously a mistake is that of John 3:8 where exactly the same Greek word "Pneuma" is curiously translated "wind".  It is particularly curious given that it is exactly the same Greek word translated as "Spirit" every other time in the very same passage and even in the very same verse - "Pneuma"!

 

John 3:8 in the King James Bible should therefore read "The SPIRIT (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound [phonos] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERYONE that is born of the SPIRIT (pneuma).    

 

In the original Greek text of any Greek Interlinear Bible John 3:8 reads as follows.

 

"...The Spirit breatheth where he willeth, and thou hearest his voice, but knoweth not whence he cometh or wither he goeth: so is everyone born of the Spirit."

 

This text clearly demonstrates that everyone born of the Spirit will have the voice of the Spirit.  Jesus spoke these words and as such we can correctly and confidently say that the infilling of the Spirit does include a voice.  As with the birth of a child the waters break and you first know that the baby is alive when you hear the "voice thereof". 

 

If there is any doubt to what this sound/voice/language (phonos) might be, we have complete clarification in Acts 2:4 when the Spirit was first poured out where they spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

Furthermore the Bible tells us that Cornelius was not saved (Acts 11:14) until preached words of salvation.  AS the words of salvation were preached, he and his house hold spoke in tongues. 

 

Although he was a devout man and prayed to God always; this manner of life did not prove that the Spirit was present, however "tongues" did. The Jews knew that they had just received the Holy Ghost "FOR they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." (Acts 10:46), evidence to them that the Holy Ghost had just been poured out.

 

Jesus said that "...true worshippers must worship God in the Spirit" (John 4:24)  The only Bible clarification for this is given in I Cor 14:14 where Paul identified that praying in the Spirit was praying in tongues.   "...If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays.

 

To support that all could speak in tongues, in 1 Cor 14:23 Paul advised that it was not wise if new or unlearned people were in the meeting.  It does not make sense that Paul would use this example unless all were capable of speaking in tongues.  We know the church were spirit filled. This passage by default shows all had the ability to speak in tongues.  This would mean those who were with the aspostles on the day of pentecost + the 3000.  The fact that context is present in all text on receiving the Holy Ghost does not mean it did not happen that is a pretext.

 

Rejoice

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:16/11/2005 7:53 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : woohoo [Anonymous]

The Bible says quite clearly that a person must have the Holy Spirit to be saved :

 

Ok, I'll buy that one.  That is VERY clear. 

We know from Bible text that being born of water is Baptism by full immersion (Matt 3:16). 

 

Wow, do we?  I can't seem to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that to be born of water is baptism.  Let's make that VERY clear...your statement here is not as clear as you would have us believe.  It is an assumption on your part.

 

Why would one need to be born of water (ie baptism as you say) when the work of regeneration is by the Spirit?  Does water do something magical?

The question is "What is being born of the Spirit ?".  The Bible says that EVERYONE that is born of the spirit has a PHONOS (sound/noise/voice/language), not just fruits (John 3:8).

In the passage of Scripture starting from John 3:1 and ending John 3:7, the word "Pneuma" in the Greek is always translated as "Spirit".  In fact every time the word "Pneuma" is used in the New Testament (with exception of two cases) it is always translated as "Spirit".  One notable exception and obviously a mistake is that of John 3:8 where exactly the same Greek word "Pneuma" is curiously translated "wind".  It is particularly curious given that it is exactly the same Greek word translated as "Spirit" every other time in the very same passage and even in the very same verse - "Pneuma"!

 

John 3:8 in the King James Bible should therefore read "The SPIRIT (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound [phonos] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERYONE that is born of the SPIRIT (pneuma).    

 

In the original Greek text of any Greek Interlinear Bible John 3:8 reads as follows.

 

"...The Spirit breatheth where he willeth, and thou hearest his voice, but knoweth not whence he cometh or wither he goeth: so is everyone born of the Spirit."

 

This text clearly demonstrates that everyone born of the Spirit will have the voice of the Spirit.  Jesus spoke these words and as such we can correctly and confidently say that the infilling of the Spirit does include a voice.  As with the birth of a child the waters break and you first know that the baby is alive when you hear the "voice thereof". 

 

Ah, do you have Longfield's parking space as well as his doctrine?  We answered this tripe a long time ago...

 

The Revival Centres claim that there is a mistranslation in the King James version of John 3:8. They say it's correct translation supports their view that one must be baptised with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues in order to be saved.

They say that it should be translated to say that, "the Spirit breathes where it chooses, and you hear the voice thereof, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit". So, wind is changed to Spirit, blows is changed to breathes, and sound is changed to voice. To them, the passage indicates that you, "hear the voice of the Spirit," whenever someone is born of the Spirit. They take 'voice of the Spirit' to mean tongues.

Firstly, we must note that nowhere in Scripture is speaking in tongues referred to as the 'voice of the Spirit' so for the Revival Centres to say so is pure assumption.

Secondly, speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit but is definitely not the 'voice of the Spirit' as the Holy Spirit does not generate the sound, people do. Both simple observation and the Bible prove this to be true. 'Though *I* speak with the tongues of men and of angels'(1 Cor 13:1); 'For *he that speaketh* in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God' (1 Cor 14:2); '*He that speaketh* in an unknown tongue edifieth himself' (1 Cor 14:4); 'For they heard *them* speak with tongues, and magnify God' (Acts 10:46); 'For if *I* pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth'( 1 Cor 14:14).

Finally, the RCI insist that all must "hear" the voice of the Spirit, and that this "hearing" is the sounds of tongues. Tongues, it is said, being the voice of the Spirit, audibly heard. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The word "hear" in this text, does not refer to audible hearing, but rather to spiritual, as is clear in the Greek. Here the word "akouo" (hear) is used as a verb, in the accusative. That means that the voice of the spirit is not audible, as would be in the genitive. Rather, it is the message or meaning which is heard. "The thing perceived", in other words. The two usages of this word is demonstrated thoughout the bible, for example Matt 13:13-17, where we see both cases and meanings used side by side. Vines gives a definition:

1.AKOUO.the usual word denoting to hear,....etc... The former (partitive genitive case) indicates a hearing of the sound ,the latter (accusative) indicates the meaning or message of the voice........in John 3:8 , of hearing the wind, the accusative is used, stressing "the thing perceived".

In John 3:8, Akouo is used in the accusative sense, meaning that the 'hearing' does not stress literal sounds but 'perceiving'. It cannot be tongues, because a literal sound is not intended by the Greek in the passage.

So, what is the passage really saying? The word used for 'wind' and 'Spirit' are the same Greek word, 'pneuma'. The John passage may be a word play with both meanings. Translating the word as 'spirit' we learn of the sovereign workings of God in relation to the new birth. The Living Bible puts it this way, "Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it will go next, so it is with the Spirit. We do not know on whom he will next bestow this life from heaven". That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of John 3, especially with regard to the surrounding passage about salvation and the workings of the heavenly realm (v.12, 16). If we translate 'pneuma' as 'wind', it does not detract from the sovereignty of God but gives us a better illustration of the Spirit's working in people. We do not see the Holy Spirit, but like the invisible wind in the trees, we know his presence by the effect it has.

If there is any doubt to what this sound/voice/language (phonos) might be, we have complete clarification in Acts 2:4 when the Spirit was first poured out where they spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

Yawn!    No we don't.  Go back and read the posts on here about tongues and Acts.

 

Jesus said that "...true worshippers must worship God in the Spirit" (John 4:24)  The only Bible clarification for this is given in I Cor 14:14 where Paul identified that praying in the Spirit was praying in tongues.   "...If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays.

 

Again, tacked this one a LONG time ago.

Revival Centres quote this to show that true Christians must speak in tongues (worship in spirit). It is often referenced with 1Corinthians 14, which refers to speaking in tongues as 'prayer in the spirit'. However, check the context. The woman asks Jesus WHERE God's people should worship. The Jews say Jerusalem and the Samaritans say on the mountain. Why does she ask this obscure question?

At one stage, God was worshipped on a mountain. But his progressive revelation to the Jews led them to erect a temple and worship his presence in the 'Holy of Holies'. The Samaritans, however, continued worshipping God on a mountain even though he was no longer there. That question of where God could be worshipped was a current issue and was addressed in John 4. However, the John 4 passage says nothing about prayer. Old Testament saints often prayed from a diversity of locations, but only worshipped at specific locations (the temple or tabernacle).

"Worship in the spirit" cannot be equated with "prayer in the Spirit". I will admit that prayer in the Spirit may well refer to speaking in tongues, but how can one link it with John 4? They are unrelated other than the mention of the 'Spirit'. If we insist that to worship in the spirit means to pray in the Spirit, then what does it mean to 'walk in the Spirit' or be 'led by the Spirit'? Does that also refer to speaking in tongues?

Furthermore, If John 4 refers to the baptism in the Spirit, then how could Jesus have said: "But the hour is coming, and is now" (v23). The hour... IS NOW? But the baptism in the Spirit did not come until Pentecost some years later. How could this 'worship in the Spirit' refer to tongues if tongues were later on and not 'NOW'?

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:16/11/2005 7:58 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : woohoo [Anonymous]

 

To support that all could speak in tongues, in 1 Cor 14:23 Paul advised that it was not wise if new or unlearned people were in the meeting.  It does not make sense that Paul would use this example unless all were capable of speaking in tongues.  We know the church were spirit filled. This passage by default shows all had the ability to speak in tongues.  This would mean those who were with the aspostles on the day of pentecost + the 3000.  The fact that context is present in all text on receiving the Holy Ghost does not mean it did not happen that is a pretext.

 

Buzz!!!  Wrong again.  Look at the rest of 1 Corinthians...

 

1 CORINTHIANS 12:5-11; 29,30

There are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities; but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses ... Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But strive for the greater gifts.

The Revival Centre difficulty with this passage is obvious. While they teach that "everyone must speak in tongues to be saved", the passage is clear that only some will speak in tongues. All believers would partake of the manifestation of the Spirit, but they would each have different roles. For this scripture very clearly states that not everyone will receive the gift of tongues. You don't all have to be 'eyes' or 'ears' (v.17) in the body, but you contribute to the unity through diversity of your gift or gifts. For the Revival Centres to say that all must be speakers of tongues is to make a body all of eyes or ears. But as it is written elsewhere, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us." -Romans 12:6.

For this reason the Revival Centres have warped this passage until it's laughable. They have systematically deconstructed the Greek of the passage and teach that all believers get all of the above gifts! A Brisbane Revival Fellowship booklet (The Gifts of the Spirit) says,

In the description of the gifts of the Spirit (v8-10); it appears that the gifts are divided and granted differently to individuals ... this is incorrect. Verse 7 very clearly states that everyone was to be granted all the gifts of the Spirit.

Perhaps in embarasment, the writer continued, "If you find the above appreciation hard to believe ...". Why do they warp the obvious meaning of the text so obviously?

The answer is simple. The RCI NEED this to work for them, otherwise, they invalidate their teaching completely. They need to find their theology here, so violence is done to the text. Yet, Paul writes in a clear fashion, and this passage is quite straight forward.

For a start, Paul states his point: divers gifts, one Spirit. (v.4-11). Here he starts his teaching, and he expounds for the rest of the chapter. This is his point. To come to a conclusion to the opposite is erroneous. If you come to another conclusion, then you missed the point and weren't paying attention. Imagine if you were trying to explian this to someone. Would you start with a clear statement and then finish saying the opposite? No. You would be clear and build each point upon the other, until there is no doubt in what you are saying. So, also the Holy Ghost, through the Apostle, would teach us in this place.

Verse 8 says: ..for to *one* is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to *another* the word of knowledge"...and so on....no where does it say that to *one* is given one gift, and to the *same* is given another. The words used are not badly translated or mysterious, Paul uses 'allu' to another [so and so is given] and 'eteru' - to a different (one) [so and so is given]. Paul's point still being : divers gifts, one Spirit.

Paul then builds further on this teaching by way of analogy- the body of Christ is likened to a human body. Many parts, different functions, one body. "But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body" (v.18-20). Thus Paul further builds on the eternal principle of unity and diversity. Paul's point still being: divers gifts, one Spirit.

Paul then concludes his argument by way of rhetoric. He outlines and ranks the different gifts,(v.28), taking care to note that all are different, and asks the rhetorical question, to bring home his conclusion. (v. 29,30). Not all are Apostles (they have passed on into glory), not all are prophets, not all are teachers, and so on. His point still remaining, *unity in diversity in the church of God, the body of Christ.* This is not a congregational question, but still speaking on principles, as it says in verse 28, "and God has appointed these in the Church". The church, it is clear in the whole context of the argument, is here referring to the universal body of Christ, as was clearly pointed out in the preceeding verses. Paul's point still being: divers gifts, one Spirit.

When Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:5 that, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues", he is making the point that not every one does. That not everyone will speak in tongues for Paul had just made that clear in his letter to the Corinthians. We each have different gifts. Paul is just pointing out the obvious. That he would rejoice if everyone did speak in tongues, but not every one does or will. Paul was clear in other Scriptures that not all Corinthians did speak in tongues (12:10, 30; 13:1; 14:2, 5, 13).

Still people like to say that in Acts, whenever the Holy Spirit was given, everyone spoke in tongues. That simply is not true. Tongues are only one of the manifestations of the Spirit given. Times tongues are mentioned: Acts 2:1-4, 10:46, 19:5-7 Instead the Spirit comes mostly with* *Revealing the glory of God. Acts 2:11, 2:23-33, 5:12-13, 6:3, 7:55 *Having everything in common. Acts 2:42-46, 4:32-35 *Conviction and the revealing of sin. Acts 2:23, 2:37, 4:10, 7:51, 8:18-23 *Power and courage. Acts 4:8-9, 4:29-31, 9:17-20, 5:9-10 Scripture never declares that tongues were always given when the baptism of the Spirit comes.

It just says that they "saw the evidence of". Which could mean any number of manifestations of the Spirit. What we see is that when the Spirit is poured out different things take place. In one place they spoke in tongues and praised God. While at other times they spoke in tongues and prophesied. For again, God gives as "he determines" and not as you try to make him do. "All these are the work of the one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines." -1 Corinthians 12:11.

The RCI objection to this point is that this refers only to a congregational meeting. It is true of course that these chapters deal with errors in the congregational meeting, but are the principles set out before us only for meetings? Let's test the theory. Verse 13 says "For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into one Spirit". Is this true only for the congregational meeting? Of course not, this is a great Spiritual principle, upon which the whole argument is based. Unity in the Spirit, diversity in gifts. Notice that the word 'congregation' is not used, but that the principle was meant to apply to the 'body' of Christ (v.12, 27). 'The body' does not merely refer to a congregational meeting, but to the Body of Christ, which means believers everywhere. Now do not begin to say to yourself,"This only applies to the Body, when the church is gathered together". For we are apart of the Body of Christ whether we are gathered in a building or not. So, the principle that believers would have unity through diversity of gifts, such as tongues, was to apply to the Body of Christ as a whole. Not all believers must 'speak in tongues'.

How did the RCI make the "no" of verses 29, and 30,into a "yes"? Simple. Cloud the issue. Smokescreen the simplicity of a straight-forward teaching. There is a term for this. It is "eisegesis", this means, basically "to read what you want into the text". It is the oppposite of "exegesis", which simply put means "draw out of the text it's contents". Friends, eisegesis is "exit Jesus". And it is the prime rule of bible interpretation in the RCI.

Now we read in 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." Now answer the following questions posed to us in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. "Are all apostles?" "Are all prophets?" "Are all teachers?" "Are all workers of miracles?" "Do all have gifts of healing?" "Do all interpret tongues?" Now in the same way you answered the questions above you should answer the next one. "Do all speak in tongues"? In summary, scripture very clearly says, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us." -Romans 12:6

1 CORINTHIANS 14:23

"If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter..."

Revival Centres say this means they were all speaking in tongues. However, Paul was clear in other Scriptures that not all Corinthians did speak in tongues (12:10, 30; 13:1; 14:2, 5, 13). So what is the passage talking about? Paul is talking about a hypothetical event.  Note he says... 'IF'

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:16/11/2005 9:25 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Brett.

Well, I'm back to continue the debate/dialogue about tongues that we were involved in that unfortuanetly for me, got sidetracked by a misunderstanding with another poster. In this post I'll focus on responding to the point made that only the 12 Apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost and that the reason they did was only so they could preach to many different people.

First up, Scripture nowhere states or infers that ?tongues' was intended to be a medium for preaching. It was intended as a ?sign' (and not an ?evidence', there is a not-so-subtle difference) at Pentecost, and as a ?sign' (albeit of a different form with a different purpose) in 1 Corinthians.

Appeals have been made to the original Greek to make us believe that only the Apostles spoke in tongues and not all the 120 that were with the Apostles. Despite the detailed explanation of the Greek given to prove this point, I am unconvinced and skeptical.

You certainly have the right to be sceptical. However, as you've stated yourself, a detailed explanation has been provided and then from the Greek text.

You certainly DON'T get the impression that only the Apostles spoke in tongues by a simple straight forward reading of the English text.

I disagree. MrJonah has already addressed the literary features of Acts 1 that discount your view, as have I in my initial response to your wife's post. Rather than cover the same ground yet again, I suggest that you re-read both explanations, followed by a reading of the passage from Acts itself (but with the Revivalist ?blinkers' removed). As an aside, you might be interested to learn that my understanding of this topic first shifted away from the RCI position after a close reading of the text in an English translation back in 1990. This was before I learned Greek, or commenced my formal studies in theology.

In Acts 1 v. 15 it says " Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about 120) and said..."

So Peter is standing in a meeting 120 people, not 11, and everything he says and does in the following verses is among those 120 believers.

Yes, but at that point in the Acts narrative, Luke had intentionally shifted the focus from Jesus and his apostles, to the nascent church then dealing with the need to replace the failed and fallen Judas. However, we discover in Acts 2:14, immediately after the Pentecostal phenomena, that the context had returned to the fulfilment of a promise made by Christ to his apostles exclusively: "...but standing up with the eleven, Peter lifted his voice..."

In those following verses where we read " they" did this, " they" decided that, " they" cast lots, it is natural to assume that the " they" are the 120, since we've been told this is a meeting of 120 believers and that Peter IS ADDRESSING THE 120. It is the same " they" who in Acts 2 verses 1 to 4 all end up speaking in tongues.

Alas, ?tis not.

However, even though that is the way you understand it when you read the English, it just can't be what it means! Apparently our English Bibles are totally and hopelessly misleading us in this passage and so we will have to depend on certain Greek scholars to know what it really means because what we think we're reading in English is misleading.

Discounting the attempt at sarcasm, I'd suggest that the fault lies not with the English translations, but with the way certain English readers import their views into them. Consider I, like you, once read this passage with a very clear theological bias, expecting to find very clear support for a particular doctrinal position. But unlike you, my understanding of how one is saved according to Scripture in no way hinges on what this specific passage means. My understanding of salvation isn't affected one way or the other. Your theological position, by contrast, suffers serious damage should it be proven that the promise of the Pentecostal phenomena related to the 12 rather than to the 120.

Even though our English Bibles were translated by competent and skilled Greek scholars so we could have an accurate and reliable English translation that gives us the sense of the original Greek, it seems that those competent and skilled scholars didn't do a good job here and have mislead us all.

Not at all. The English translations are, bye-and-large, very good renderings of the original. But points of theology cannot be settled on what this or that translation states, they must rest on the original text.

I have encountered Greek scholars insisting on a point of translation and grammar to prove a theological point who were refuted by other Greek scholars as being in error. I'm sure that is the case here.

No reputable Greek scholar would build a theological system ?based on diphthongs'. This remains the purview of the sects and cults. And as I pointed out above, my understanding of salvation isn't dependent on this particular issue - yours is!

I have commentaries by theologians, learned in Greek, who all say that it was all the 120 who spoke in tongues.

Brett, my own commentary library is quite extensive (I have nine on the book of Acts alone). With the sole exception of Ben Witherington's socio-rhetorical commentary (published by Eerdmans), none suggest that the Pentecostal phenomena related to the 120. And Witherington's comments are, of themselves, quite suggestive, in that he at no point establishes or seeks to establish his view with reference to the Greek text. He simply and clearly presents his opinion as precisely that: an opinion. Bruce, Barrett, Fitzmyer and Conzelmann, by contrast - all of whom wrote commentaries that discuss the Greek text in extraordinary detail - do precisely the opposite! So there are opinions, and there are facts.

Your wife referred to the commentary produced by Dr I. Howard Marshall, and which appears in the Tyndale series. It is an entry-level work, one that is based on the English and not the Greek Bible. But in her post she obliquely infers that Marshall's reference to Hanson's commentary supported her contention that the 120 shared in the experience of the 12. I have checked Hanson's commentary for myself. The reference had nothing at all to do with the Pentecostal outpouring, but everything to do with the fact that the number of believers was 120! So the quote doesn't even touch the matter at hand, and Pilinut's inference is invalid!

Now given that you have referred to commentaries (plural) that you own, and which apparently support your own position, I would ask that you list their authors so that I might check them for myself, and post the results here.

I've read numerous statements by Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican and other commentators that it was the 120 who spoke in tongues.

No doubt.

Even my own wife, who has been doing a course on New Testament Greek (and has achieved excellent grades) has been able to refute the allegation that it was only the 12 and not the 120, by referring to the Greek grammar in the passage.

She has refuted nothing, Brett. Sandra e-mailed me that she had done Greek 1 (introductory Greek) by correspondence through at an American AOG college. My own experience with the language is considerably broader and deeper, to the point where I teach Greek to BTh undergraduates (and then at a far more advanced level than the course your wife undertook). Sandra herself admitted in a post that ?...I could run rings around her Greek', so I believe you have done her a disservice by introducing her into the fray at this point, when she sought to remove herself from it. I wonder if she would feel the same way?

But of course she must be totally ruled out of any discussion of the Greek coz she is only a missionary housewife! How dare a mere missionary wife challenge the allegations of a member of that elite class of people, the Greek scolars!

Try this analogy: a holder of a St John's basic certificate in First Aid taking to task a surgeon over his understanding of medicine! It has nothing at all to do with her being a ?missionary housewife', Brett. It has everything to do with her competence and experience in Greek exegesis.

How dare any of us "ordinary" and "unlearned" believers even presume to question those who are so learned and far above and beyond us in knowledge and understanding! One simply must not challenge the elite!!

Far better to stick to topics about which one actually has a reasonable level of competence and ability, brother. In any case, I'd suggest that you cease with the argumentum ad hominem, and stick to the issue at hand.

Don't get me wrong though. Greek scholars are absolutely necessary and essential.

Agreed. They keep the ?dabblers' in Greek both honest and ?on-track'.

Without them we wouldn't have an English Bible, so I can assure you that I do respect, appreciate and value Greek Bible scholars.

I'm sure you do.

However, they are not beyond the temptation to make a passage say what they want it to say when they want it to agree with their theological views.

If this is intended to be an oblique charge against me, then you're off track. I also find it to be a remarkably ignorant and arrogant thing to say. Consult the Greek reference grammars of Roberston; Blass, Debrunner & Funk; and Moulton, Howard & Turner, and then repent of your impertinence.

So I am skeptical regarding the argument that has been advanced. I think it's a very clever argument, ( it really made me think!), but it is not correct.

I wonder that you so casually claim the right to speak authoritatively, and to pass judgement on the matter. This is based on what, exactly?

But, I will go along with the argument and make my following points on the assumption that it was only the 12 Apostles who spoke in tongues at Pentecost and not the 120 and see where that will lead. Even if it was the Apostles, as we look carefully at what Peter said on the day of Pentecost and at other statements by him in other parts of Acts, we will see that he expected everybody who received the Spirit to receive the same way he did: with tongues. Everybody.

No he didn't. And neither, apparently, did Luke (who recorded Peter's words and wrote Acts).

I will explain this in my next post.

Excuse me for saying so, but you have taken an awful lot upon yourself, Brett. Error is error irrespective of the quarter it derives from, and I for one do not intend to let you continue to post your rendering of the unbiblical Revivalist ?salvation' doctrine without challenge. Paul summed up what you ?preach' as "...another gospel."

Over to you,

Ian

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:16/11/2005 10:42 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Anonymous

Hi, Brett.Well, I'm back to continue the debate/dialogue about tongues that we were involved in that unfortuanetly for me, got sidetracked by a misunderstanding with another poster. In this post I'll focus on responding to the point made that only the 12 Apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost and that the reason they did was only so they could preach to many different people.First up, Scripture nowhere states or infers that ?tongues' was intended to be a medium for preaching. It was intended as a ?sign' (and not an ?evidence', there is a not-so-subtle difference) at Pentecost, and as a ?sign' (albeit of a different form with a different purpose) in 1 Corinthians.Appeals have been made to the original Greek to make us believe that o

Brett,

Now to consider ?part 2' of your post:

I am presuming that the only the 12 Apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2 v.4. Peter was one of those Apostles. What did he think about what he had just experienced? What was the meaning and significance of it for him? He tells us in his sermon in Acts 2.

Sure, but let's not be too hasty to dismiss the contents of Acts 1:1-12 at this stage.

A crowd had gathered, amazed and troubled by the sight and sound of the Apostles speaking in tongues. Verse 12: " Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? ". They wanted to know what was the meaning and significance of the speaking in tongues they were hearing. This is an important point.

Do you really think so? I've read the passage again myself, and I can't find anything that supports your supposition to that effect.

They were not amazed and perplexed by the rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire above the heads of the Apostles, they were NOT asking " what is the meaning of that wind and those tongues of fire above your heads?" Obviously those things had ceased by the time they gathered where the Apostles were, coz THE ONLY THING THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT WAS THE SPEAKING IN TONGUES. This indicates that they didn't hear the wind or see the tongues of fire, those things had only been for the Apostles and had come and gone by the time the crowd came to investigate.

I hope you don't mind me suggesting that yours is a rather ?idiosyncratic' interpretation of the said passage. So you think that a ?prayer-meeting', one where commonly understood languages were being used, would create such a massive stir? Of course, your position needs to dismiss completely the Jewish tradition concerning the giving of the law at Sinai that was in vogue during the first century. It must also dismiss every reference to the record of Pentecost from Christian sources from the 2nd century onwards. So I don't think your view is particularly likely, and I don't find it very convincing.

However, they could see and hear the Apostles speaking in tongues and THAT was what they wanted to know about. They wanted to know what is the meaning and significance of tongues. Peter ( verse 14 ) stands up and gives them the answer to their question. He is going to explain to them what speaking in tongues is. He does so by quoting the prophet Joel. Verse 16 - " This ( the speaking in tongues) is what was spoken by the prophet Joel....in the last days.....says God...I will pour out my spirit on all people...". Peter is telling them that the speaking in tongues that they could see and hear is the outpouring of the Spirit for everybody in the last days.

Brett, I'd suggest you speak to your wife and see if she can come up with some sort of defence for your view from the Greek text (I don't want to go too hard, too early).

I.e, "this", the speaking in tongues, is the gift of God's Spirit for all people in the last days. What he is saying is that it will be by speaking in tongues that ALL PEOPLE in the last days will have God's Spirit poured out on them. He is saying that the infilling of the Spirit WITH TONGUES is for every single person, " all people", " in the last days".

Please read the passage again, to work out what Peter was referring to.

Obviously he didn't think that what he had just received was only for himself and 11 other Aostles only, so they could preach to many different people, but rather was FOR EVERYBODY IN THE LAST DAYS. Are we in the last days now? Are we?

From a Christian perspective, the ?Last Days' began with Jesus Christ walking the earth. From a Jewish perspective it began with the exile under Nebuchadrezzer.

It is curious that certain Christian commentators opposed to tongues, will say that the tongues experienced by the Apostles at Pentecost was only for them, only for the first century, and at the same time they tell us that we are now living in the last days.

That's because such ?certain Christian commentators' tend to interpret the passage responsibility and (bye-and-large) dispassionately.

Well, if indeed we are now in the last days, then that means that the very same experience that Peter and the other Apostles had at Pentecost, is available for every single person who comes to Christ NOW.

Okay, so the SAME EXPERIENCE (less the sound of a violent wind and visible, parting flames, of course) is available to all nowadays?

This also obviously implies that when Peter and the others spoke in tongues at Pentecost, they DID NOT see it as a special, unique ability only for them so they could preach to many foreigners in their own languages.

Can I ask you this: when Peter preached to Cornelius and his household about salvation through Jesus, why did he and the Jewish-Christians with him experience such ?amazement' that Gentiles spoke in tongues? Surely they must have expected them to?

What the Apostles experienced at Pentecost is for "all people" " in the last days". AGAIN I ASK , ARE WE LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS NOW OR NOT ? Admittedly, Peter's quote of Joel mentions visions and dreams, and obviously the crowd didn't see the Apostles having dreams and visions.

Can I ask you just what was the ?thrust' of Joel's prophecy?

In verse 18, Peter says that when God pours out his spirit on His servants, both men and women, THEY WILL PROPHECY. I believe that " prophesying" is speaking in tongues, prophetic praise, worship and prayer, inspired directly and supernaturally by the Holy Spirit within.

So, even though Scripture apparently keeps ?tongues' and prophecy separate and distinct, to you they're one and the same? What do you think this suggests about the way you interpret Scripture?

If it is not referring to speaking in tongues, then where does Joel's prophecy speak of tongues?

Well...Joel doesn't refer to speaking in tongues at all. Not once.

According to Peter, Joel spoke about speaking in tongues, so where is Joel's reference to tongues? If it's not in the " they shall prophecy" then it's nowhere in the passage and Peter didn't know what he was talking about.

Or, just perhaps, Peter knew what he was talking about but you don't? And please, don't presume to put ?words' into either Joel's or Peter's mouths, words which they never ?uttered' giving support to meanings they never intended.

So based on what Peter said about tongues, they would be the required sign to accompany the outpouring of the Spirit.

Brett, I'm really concerned as to how you go about ?interpreting' Scripture. You start with an assumption that you believe MUST be correct, and then start ?fishing' for something that ?sorta', ?kinda' looks like it just might fit at a ?pinch'. In short, you are twisting Scripture to defend your own views. You're NOT testing your position against what Scripture actually states!

We are also told that 3,000 people were converted and baptized by Peter's message, but anti tongues commentators tell us that those 3,000 did not receive what Peter and the Apostles had received, even though Peter had told them that what he had received was for ALL PEOPLE IN THE LAST DAYS.

Not so. Commentators agree that the 3,000 were saved via the agency of the Holy Spirit. What you've done is confuse a specific and temporal manifesting of the Holy Spirit that was promised by Christ to his apostles, with the work of the Spirit himself. That's just dumb, if you don't mind me saying so.

Let's examine this allegation. In verse 39 Peter tells the 3,000 that they would receive the " promise". The " promise" Peter told them they ALL could receive was the same promise he had referred to in verse 33; "..the promise of the Holy Spirit" which they could all see and hear happening, and that means tongues.

Once again, you're ADDING your interpretation to what the passage ACTUALLY states. The promise was the Holy Spirit indwelling, and not the Holy Spirit outwardly manifesting.

So Peter is telling the 3,000 that they would all receive the promise of the Holy Spirit which they had all SEEN and HEARD. Was peter telling them that they would all experience a rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire above their heads? No. When they received the promised Holy Spirit, they would also experience what they had seen and heard in the Apostles; speaking in tongues.

Yours is little more than irresponsible circular reasoning. I'm not even going to bother going to much trouble any further with this line of argument, as I'm confident everyone is well able to judge your methods for what they are.

In verse 41 we're told that they "received" Peter's message and got baptized. Peter had told them to repent, but verse 41 doesn't mention their repentance. Are we to believe that they didn't repent? Likewise, Peter had told them that they would receive the promise of the Spirit, which they had seen and heard, which means that he's telling them that they would receive the same thing as he had. The Spirit with tongues.

Brett, Peter's message was all about Jesus, who he is and what he'd done. The context makes that perfectly plain.

Even though it doesn't say in verse 41 that they received the infilling, we can be certain that they all would have been led to seek the experience by the Apostles.

Luke tells us that 3,000 believed and were baptised. Surprisingly, given your position, he says nothing about ?tongues'.

There are other passages that prove that Peter believed that tongues was the required and expected sign of receiving. In Acts 10 Peter was told to go and preach the Gospel to Cornelius and his friends. As Peter was preaching to them they all received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Yes, and the gospel Peter preached was, yet again, all about Jesus. Not even a passing mention of the Holy Spirit prior to the event, in this particular instance.

There were believers from Joppa who had accompanied Peter. He said to them in verse 47 "..they ( Cornelius and co.) have received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE..." Obviously the other believers from Joppa had received the Spirit the same way Peter had and Cornelius had received the same way also. They had all spoken in tongues.

Please take the trouble to read my article on Acts 10 at www.pleaseconsider.info Unlike you, I don't simply assert something to be the case. I go into sufficient detail to establish my position from the text itself.

As for the argument that the tongues in Acts 2 was only for preaching, was Cornelius and his friends preaching to Peter? Were the 12 men who received with tongues when Paul prayed for them preaching to Paul in Acts 19?

Nope, but as I've already maintained, ?tongues' has nothing to do with preaching the gospel.

In the next chapter, 11, Peter arrives in Jerusalem and is confronted by the church. "So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him..." Note that it is not just the 11 Apostles who are contending with Peter, but the believers, the whole church in Jerusalem.

And there is a reason for this. Read my essay on Acts 10 and you will discover why.

In verses 15 and 16 Peter explains that Cornelius and co. had received the same baptism in the Spirit that they all had received. Verse 15 can be translated from the Greek without the definite article "...the Holy Spirit fell on them as he came on us when we began..."

And are you going to give me a lesson in Greek now? To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove via your rather cryptic comment regarding the Greek article; however, I will state that the text includes it (as it must, for grammatical reasons).

Who are the "us" that Peter refers to?

Read my essay on Acts 10.

Not just the 12 Apostles, but all the believers that Peter is addressing, the whole church. He is not just addressing those who had been present at Pentecost almost 4 years earlier, but the entire church, so every member of the church had received the same way Cornelius had. With tongues.

A couple of points: first, Peter was referring back to the events of Pentecost, and so that makes the issue temporally situated, and consequently not inclusive of the ?whole church' as you maintain. Second, the events involving Cornelius and his household occurred 10 years after Pentecost, and not the 4 years that you assert. Third, neither Peter nor his associates expected Cornleius and his group to speak in ?tongues'. The context of 10:45-46 makes this plain. Your assertions simply don't match the written record as we have it.

Likewise, in Acts 15, many years later, Peter is again addressing the WHOLE CHURCH in Jerusalem, and is reminding them how Cornelius and co. had received the Spirit years before. ".....God ....showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them JUST AS HE DID TO US...". Verse 8. Then in verse 12, after hearing Peter's address " the whole assembly became silent....' So the "us" Peter is referring to is the entire church not just the 12 Apostles.

Are you seriously putting this stuff up as your defence?

Clearly, every member of the church had received the Spirit the same way the Apostles had received at Pentecost.

Perhaps this is clear to you, brother, but I would be so bold as to suggest it is not clear to me, and cannot be defended according to Luke's record.

In conclusion, the fact is that as far as Peter was concerned, speaking in tongues would be the evidence of the outpouring or receiving of the Spirit for "all people" "in the last days". Therefore, "all people" that received the Spirit in the Apostolic church spoke in tongues as Peter said would be the case in Acts 2.

Brett, you've twisted the text this way and that, you've inserted things here and there, and dismissed other bits and pieces along the way; but you've not come even close to establishing that the texts of Acts reflect (dare I say ?mirror') your beliefs.

Regardless of whether we still believe in tongues or not, whatever our present stand may be about it, it is an interesting and revealing fact, that all who post on this forum spoke in tongues when the Spirit was poured out on them.

Not at all. Perhaps Revivalists were told they received a ?peach', but were really presented with a ?pear'. Anyway, personal experience isn't the ultimate test of Christian truth: Scripture is.

We may now wish to explain away what happened to us as "induced", "suggestion", "delusion" or whatever, but the fact remains that the Apostle Peter said that tongues would be the gift of the Spirit for " all people" in these "last days", whether we like it or not.

Well, you've not established this Revivalist-esque assertion to be the case.

Brett, having read your post I'm now very concerned at the way you handle Scripture, and the methods you apply in your efforts to interpret the same. Very, very concerned.

Ian

 
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:18/11/2005 1:10 PMCopy HTML

Brett,
 
I believe the commentary that you are referring to by Bruce is his NICNT edition on Acts (published by Eerdmans in 1994). This one is based on the ENGLISH text. The version I am referring to is the one published originally by Tyndale in the 1950s, and republished by Eerdmans (3rd edition, 1990) on the GREEK text. They are not the same commentary, so please don't accuse me of dishonesty.
 
Ian 
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:18/11/2005 3:45 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Anonymous

But it appears that FF Bruce changed his tune then somewhere between the 1950s and the 1990s. 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:18/11/2005 4:01 PMCopy HTML

Sorry, the above post was  mine...didn't login.

So we have 'the dean of Evangelical scholars' changing his point of view in later life.  It seems that higher authorities than Ian (that Ian recognises) disagrees with Ian. 

Either way, 120 or 12, I still think that the claim of Acts 2 as a normative experience for all believers is still out the window without a normative wind sound and tongues of fire.

And another thing, for what it is worth, I don't believe anyone is being dishonest.  They are just saying what the believe and trying to support that point of view.  I don't think dishonesty has anything to do with it.  Sure, argue the point, but don't call each other liars and such. 

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:19/11/2005 12:08 AMCopy HTML

$%*'`[from brett]%*'`@

Hi, Ian, Mr Jonah, Wazza and all others debating the tongues issue here.

I'm sorry Ian, but I'm not convinced by your arguments. I know many, maybe most on this forum are not convinced by my arguments, but this is democracy and freedom of expression in action. So as long as others don't resort to the low level of calling me "evil", "cultic", "stupid" or whatever I've got no problem talking about things.

I do believe that Peter was equating the tongues with the "prophesying" Joel said would accompany the outpouring of the Spirit.

To repeat, the onlookers were asking about the tongues, not the wind or tongues of fire.

"What does THIS [the tongues} mean? I.e., what are these languages we're hearing, what is it?

Peter answered "...THIS {the tongues, not the tongues of fire, wind or anything else} is what was spoken by the prophet Joel..."

I.e. The prophet Joel spoke about what you people are actually seeing and hearing, he spoke about what you are asking about, he spoke about speaking in tongues.

Peter clearly said that Joel's passage spoke about tongues, but you say Joel never mentioned tongues, but Peter said he did!

It's true that tongues and prophecy are spoken of as separate operations in the NT.

Please bear with me while I explain why Peter equated speaking with tongues by power of the Spirit with the "...they shall prophesy..."

Nearly every reference to prophets and prophesying in the O.T refers to chosen people who were supernaturally inspired by God's spirit to speak messages TO the people.

 However, there was a "prophesying" that would happen when the Spirit came to people that was not understood as bringing a message TO the people. In this "prophesying" there was no preaching, no message addressed to others, it was a manifestation of spontaneous, inspired praise and worship caused by the Spirit "coming upon" someone.

E.g., In Numbers chapter 11, God told Moses to set aside 70 elders whom He would give the Holy Spirit to.

Verse 25, God "...put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they PROPHESIED....."

The evidence or proof that God gave to show that these men had received the Spirit was a sudden, spontaneous outburst of "prophesying".

Obviously, these 70 were not preaching or delivering messages TO the people. They were all "prophesying" together at the same time.

This was what has been called "prophetic" praise, worship and giving of thanks directed to God, not people. The Spirit suddenly came to them, entered within them, filled them, resulting in an overflow of praise and worship pouring out of their mouths.

We see the same evidence of the coming of the Spirit in the life of King Saul.

In 1 Samuel 10 we find Saul being told that he would meet a group of "prophets" who would all be " prophesying" together as they were walking around.

"The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in power, and you will PROPHESY with them....".

So, in 10 we read how ".....a procession of prophets met him. The Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their PROPHESYING..."

Again, all these prophets walking around "prophesying" with the help of musical instruments were not preaching or delivering messages to the people.

This was another example of "prophetic" praise and worship. The "prophesying" was being addressed to God, not to people.

When such prophetic praise and worship was seen happening to Saul, it was evidence that the Spirit had come to him and that he was a prophet.

In 1 Chronicles 25 we find certain people set aside ".... For the ministry of PROPHESYING accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals..." Verse 1.

 These men were NOT preaching, yet they were prophesying.

They were praising and worshipping God.

"Prophesying" that was directed to God, not people.

"Prophetic" praise and worship.

Verse 3 mentions certain men "...who PROPHESIED using the harp in THANKING and PRAISING the Lord".

Prophetic praise, thanksgiving and worship.

In Numbers 11 Moses had expressed the hope that one day ALL of God's people would receive the Spirit the way that the 70 elders had. Verse 29.

On the day of Pentecost what Moses had longed for ALL God's people had arrived.

A new age, era had dawned.

Coz of the atoning death of Christ, All that God would call, everyone who called on the Lord, would be able to experience the Spirit "coming upon" them with an experience of prophetic praise and worship.

In the last days, when God pours out his Spirit on people "...they shall prophesy".

Speaking in tongues is a manifestation of "prophetic" praise and worship.

fficeffice" /> 

So I believe this is what Peter had in mind. Joel's passage SPOKE ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES, Peter knew what he was talking about.

When God pours out His Spirit on us, the sign or evidence will be that we will "prophesy".

I.e. as we are filled by the Spirit of God, words of praise, thanksgiving and worship will overflow out of our mouths. This will be caused by the Spirit, not just our own minds.

Under the OT such " prophesying" was always in Hebrew coz Gods covenant was only with the people of Israel at that time, now under the new covenant it will be supernaturally in many languages.

I agree with the point that Wazza has made.

Unfortunately, a number of people who are "speaking in tongues" are only repeating a few words over and over or even worse, mere syllables.

I agree that that is not SPEAKING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.

What I have found in dealing with this problem is that people CAN clearly and FLUENTLY speak in a language, but when they pray they tend to just repeat a few words, even though they CAN speak many words fluently and beautifully.

I think the problem is that people don't bother to speak properly even thought they can.

Laziness is probably the problem.

Also, there is the possibility that people have never really spoken in  a language coz of such counseling methods as " expect to stammer", "there are syllables there already there, just let it change more , that's it ".

My belief is that you open your heart to God, start praising him {using any word you want} the Spirit will come upon you, enter within you, fill you, and when you're full you will be able to clearly, fluently and wonderfully start speaking words of praise, thanksgiving and worship in a LANGUAGE you have never learnt or spoken or studied before.

No need for long periods of saying "la la la, shiga dig a dig".

You either speak or can speak in another LANGUAGE or you cant.

Ian, you accused me of twisting the scriptures to support what I want scripture to say.

Well, I think you are the one misusing the scriptures, but Im not going to start calling you names or insult yo. Yes, I admit that sometimes I lean towards sarcasm, but I know it never really helps.

We ALL approach the scriptures with the intention of using them to support whatever position we hold to, whether we are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Pentecostal or Revivalist. That is what we all do.

You do it. I do it. Everybody does it.

Let's face it, none of us use scripture to prove what those who oppose us are saying is right!!

The point is somebody's interpretation is wrong and somebody's is right.

I think my interpretation of scripture is right and you think yours is and others think theirs is.

That's the whole point of a forum like this.

We all present our interpretation of the relevant scriptures and the readers and hearers decide for themselves.

Hopefully they will decide due to a careful, thoughtful weighing up of the scriptures presented, and not due to an emotional prejudice against certain doctrinal positions coz they are held by certain groups.

EmporersNewClothes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Regular User
  • Score:2620
  • Posts:107
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:10/08/2005 12:16 AM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:19/11/2005 4:34 AMCopy HTML

When the 'events' every is so bent out of shape about actually happened, people thought the world was flat and the donkey was the most sohisticated means of travel.

Its fair to say we as a species have developed (avoiding the e word) and now realise a few more things about this planet and our position on it.

We now know and have demonstrated that 1. the world is not flat and 2. tongues is merely a form of meditation that involves regression to a time of early childhood, thus experiencing feelings of warmth and comfort associated with this stage of human development. If you doubt this look around the web, read some independant studies that show tongues can be tought to a group of non-believers who experience the same feelings, but do not associate the act with God.

To me it is easy to understand how people of bible times could misinterpret this 'sign' as being a gift from god, rather that not much more than a secret handshake - albeit one that felt pretty good to those who knew it. Many things in history that were attributed to signs or acts of God have now been explained with biology/physics/medicine.

Just my 2c.
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:19/11/2005 10:00 AMCopy HTML

Brett & Sandra,
 
I believe, perhaps, that you have both missed the point of this discussion. I will, of course, track down a copy of Bruce's NICNT commentary (I don't own it, and have never used it. Given that I have what is considered to be his best effort on the Greek text of Acts, I saw no need to purchase his commentary on the English text). However, what you quoted makes it  seem likely that Bruce changed his view on the 12 vs. 120 before his death. Still, I also notice that, like Witherington, he doesn't seem to base (or reference) his (later) view on the Greek text. If he did, you certainly didn't include the information in your quotes. If he didn't, then we are faced with an earlier position based strictly on dispassionate and detailed exegesis, and a later opinion which is not so rigorously referenced or defended. Speaking for myself, I don't accept commentators simply at their word, and certainly not when they cannot (or do not) provide exegetical reasons for their findings. In any case, the bulk of the recognised, critical scholarly commentaries, and all the standard Greek reference grammars that are used by the commentators when weighing exegetical arguments, yet favour my POV.
 
But the issue has shifted not so imperceptably. We have begun to move away from the primary document towards secondary resources (i.e. the commentaries). Sandra, you still haven't demonstrated, from what the Greek states, that the 120 were in view. This remains the clincher to the argument. And Brett, your idiosyncratic views as to what drew the attention of the masses at Pentecost yet find no support whatsoever in any commentator from Ephrem Syrus to Charles Kinsley Barrett! So I'd like you to explain for me, grammatically (and syntactically), how you arrived at your conclusions, and how you defend such a unique position. Personally, I believe your argument to be based on little more than your pet theology.
 
So, given the weight of the evidence (from both primary and secondary sources) stands against your POV, the onus of proof rests with you. I, for one, am very far from being convinced.
 
Blessings,
 
Ian
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:20/11/2005 6:01 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : AnonymousBrett & Sandra,I believe, perhaps, that you have both missed the point of this discussion. I will, of course, track down a copy of Bruce's NICNT commentary (I don't own it, and have never used it. Given that I have what is considered to be his best effort on theGreektext of Acts, I saw no need to purchase his commentary on theEnglishtext). However, what you quoted makes it seem likely that Bruce changed his view on the 12vs. 120before his death.My name is not Sandra BTW.Frankly I don't actually see what the point is. It sounds like so much straining at gnats.Who received first sounds like the debate the 12 were having before Jesus died. "Grant him to sit on your right hand." Given that in verse 39 it says 3000 wereadded to their number t
Brett/Pilinut,
 
To advance this conversation a little further, I've decided to spend just a little more time explaining (grammatically, but perhaps a bit more simply for everyone's benefit) why it is incredibly unlikely that the 120 are in view as the implied subject of the verb "...they were filled" in Acts 2:4. Many of the third person plural pronouns (or those implied in verbs) following the mention of the 120 in 1:15 could legitimately understood as either referring narrowly to the eleven apostles, or more broadly to the entire gathering. However, even if interpreted broadly from vv. 15-20, beginning in 1:21 the focus is clearly on a conversation among the eleven as Peter describes the necessity to replace Judas. He refers to the larger group as external to the party involved in the discussion: "...one of these (referring to the larger group, but not including the apostles) must become a witness with us (now referring only to the eleven)."

In the following verses (23-26) the third person plural references ["they put forward," "they prayed," "they drew lots"] almost certainly preserves this focus, and so refers to the eleven. At the end Matthias is added to the eleven, making them the explicit focus at the close of the paragraph. When the next narrative sequence starts, it picks up with another third person plural pronoun, "...they were all together in one place," but in light of the previous paragraph, the focus is still on the (now 12) apostles. As the narrative in chapter two progresses, those filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues are accused of being drunk (2:13). In 2:14, Peter "takes his stand with" the apostles, and defends them against the accusations of drunkenness, claiming that they are filled with the Holy Spirit as Joel had prophesied. I take it that his taking a stand with the apostles, and his defending those accused, are the same action; this is further confirmation for me that the passage should be read with focus placed on the eleven/twelve apostles. And, of course, this is precisely how the grammars understand the matter as well (albeit they use far more technical argumentation than I have used here).
 
I await your response.
 
Ian

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:20/11/2005 6:47 AMCopy HTML

Brett,

I'm sorry Ian, but I'm not convinced by your arguments. I know many, maybe most on this forum are not convinced by my arguments, but this is democracy and freedom of expression in action.

Sure, but biblical truth isn't contingent upon democratic processes.

I do believe that Peter was equating the tongues with the "prophesying" Joel said would accompany the outpouring of the Spirit.

Clearly you do believe this to be the case. I've already pointed out that I can't find any support in Scripture for such a view.

To repeat, the onlookers were asking about the tongues, not the wind or tongues of fire. "What does THIS [the tongues} mean? I.e., what are these languages we're hearing, what is it? Peter answered "...THIS {the tongues, not the tongues of fire, wind or anything else} is what was spoken by the prophet Joel..." I.e. The prophet Joel spoke about what you people are actually seeing and hearing, he spoke about what you are asking about, he spoke about speaking in tongues. Peter clearly said that Joel's passage spoke about tongues, but you say Joel never mentioned tongues, but Peter said he did!

The onlookers weren't focussed on the tongues to the exclusion of the heavenly portents at all. The "tongues", recall, brought mockery (accusations of drunkeness). The portents, on the other hand, brought amazement and fear and the assembling of a very large crowd. Go back to the text and read for yourself.

It's true that tongues and prophecy are spoken of as separate operations in the NT.

Well, given that you admit as much, it might be time to review your position on the matter.

Please bear with me while I explain why Peter equated speaking with tongues by power of the Spirit with the "...they shall prophesy..." Nearly every reference to prophets and prophesying in the O.T refers to chosen people who were supernaturally inspired by God's spirit to speak messages TO the people. However, there was a "prophesying" that would happen when the Spirit came to people that was not understood as bringing a message TO the people. In this "prophesying" there was no preaching, no message addressed to others, it was a manifestation of spontaneous, inspired praise and worship caused by the Spirit "coming upon" someone. E.g., In Numbers chapter 11, God told Moses to set aside 70 elders whom He would give the Holy Spirit to.

The particulars of the accounts that you have sought support from don't match the events of the passage under discussion. In short, you've failed to prove your case.

[I've snipped the further OT references, as they failed to establish your position]

So I believe this is what Peter had in mind. Joel's passage SPOKE ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES, Peter knew what he was talking about.

Brett, let me be very clear on this point: Joel spoke of the time when the Holy Spirit would dwell corporately, rather than particularly (go back and read the entirety of the book of Joel for yourself if you doubt me). He was not referencing "tongues" at all. Noting this, have a closer look at how Peter placed Joel's message into the context of the events at Pentecost. In your haste to find a defence for your Revivalist theology, you've missed the entire point of the Pentecost passage!

When God pours out His Spirit on us, the sign or evidence will be that we will "prophesy". I.e. as we are filled by the Spirit of God, words of praise, thanksgiving and worship will overflow out of our mouths. This will be caused by the Spirit, not just our own minds. Under the OT such " prophesying" was always in Hebrew coz Gods covenant was only with the people of Israel at that time, now under the new covenant it will be supernaturally in many languages.

This is personal opinion based solely on theological supposition. The text simply doesn't support this view, nor does it lend credence to it. If you want to convince me, then you'll need Scripture backing you up.

I agree with the point that Wazza has made. Unfortunately, a number of people who are "speaking in tongues" are only repeating a few words over and over or even worse, mere syllables.

You share the Revivalist fixation with "tongues", and like them, it has skewed the way in which you approach Scripture. Once you place "tongues" into their proper context, then Scripture itself will come into sharper focus.

I agree that that is not SPEAKING ANOTHER LANGUAGE. What I have found in dealing with this problem is that people CAN clearly and FLUENTLY speak in a language, but when they pray they tend to just repeat a few words, even though they CAN speak many words fluently and beautifully. I think the problem is that people don't bother to speak properly even thought they can. Laziness is probably the problem.

More supposition based on personal opinion (with a healthy dose of "helpful" training in "tongues" as well?). Brett, I believe that I have a valid and authentic gift of "tongues". Experience and the teaching of Scripture has demonstrated to me that many that claim the same themselves are in error. But does this really matter? Not one jot, as "tongues" isn't the pivotal issue that you believe it to be. It isn't an "evidence" of anything - least of all the indwelling Holy Spirit - it is, at best, something of a "sign" and a very minor gift in the greater scheme of things.

Also, there is the possibility that people have never really spoken in a language coz of such counseling methods as " expect to stammer", "there are syllables there already there, just let it change more , that's it ".

Supposition based on a faulty understanding of the theology of spiritual gifts.

My belief is that you open your heart to God, start praising him {using any word you want} the Spirit will come upon you, enter within you, fill you, and when you're full you will be able to clearly, fluently and wonderfully start speaking words of praise, thanksgiving and worship in a LANGUAGE you have never learnt or spoken or studied before.

Your belief isn't based on a shred of Scriptural support, Brett. What you are suggesting here is the embracing of "ecstatic" religion.

Ian, you accused me of twisting the scriptures to support what I want scripture to say. Well, I think you are the one misusing the scriptures, but Im not going to start calling you names or insult you. Yes, I admit that sometimes I lean towards sarcasm, but I know it never really helps.

I've accused of you of twisting Scripture because that is precisely what you've done. You approach the Bible in a wholly subjective, unsystematic, na?e and "proof-texting" fashion: precisely the method followed and endorsed by the Revivalist groups. But if you believe me to be misusing (or abusing) Scripture, then please demonstrate my error, and show where and how I've done anything other than expose the meaning of the texts I've addressed. Brett, I try to show people my "workings-out". It's not enough to simply provide the "answer", and expect people to swallow it gullibly.

But I will not resort to "name-calling". However, given the urgency that Scripture places on the matter, I will point out that what you are preaching here goes by the name of heresy.

We ALL approach the scriptures with the intention of using them to support whatever position we hold to, whether we are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Pentecostal or Revivalist. That is what we all do. You do it. I do it. Everybody does it.

You assume too much. I approach Scripture as a "hearer". You clearly approach the same as a "speaker". I make it my habit to test my ideas against Scripture, but I would suggest that you test Scripture against your ideas. We are not the same in this regard, Brett.

Let's face it, none of us use scripture to prove what those who oppose us are saying is right!!

That might be true of you, but it isn't of me.

The point is somebody's interpretation is wrong and somebody's is right.

Agreed.

I think my interpretation of scripture is right and you think yours is and others think theirs is. That's the whole point of a forum like this.

The difference, however, is that some choose to exposit (or "expose") Scripture in order to demonstrate why a particular position is correct. Others simply state that they're right and others wrong. If you want to convince others (including me) that you're correct in what you assert, then you'll have to provide more than simply your opinions. I believed Lloyd Longfield's once, but I'm far wiser (and more learned) now than I was then.

We all present our interpretation of the relevant scriptures and the readers and hearers decide for themselves. Hopefully they will decide due to a careful, thoughtful weighing up of the scriptures presented, and not due to an emotional prejudice against certain doctrinal positions coz they are held by certain groups.

Agreed. But information is required to make an informed decision, not supposition. I reiterate what I stated earlier: your approach to interpreting Scripture concerns me greatly. Your "salvation message" isn't biblical. According to Paul, it's nothing short of "another gospel".

Ian

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:22/11/2005 11:09 AMCopy HTML

Hi Brett,
 
Christ taught (Luke 11 verses 9 to 13) that in order to receive the Holy Sprit we must specifically pray, ask to receive it. We must seek to receive it.
 
Two things: (1) Luke 11:9-13 is a parable about God's faithfulness, using the language of everyday human need. At the conclusion of the parable comes the "punch-line": God (the Father) understands our daily needs and our deeper needs. He would, therefore, give the Holy Spirit to those who asked (and not sought) of him. (2) The Holy Spirit is a "who" and not an "it". You still seem to follow the RCI/GRC/CAI's Holy Spirit = "spiritual electricity" line. That's bad. 
 
In obedience to this teaching of Christ we encourage new members to pray and seek to be filled with the Spirit.
 
Nowhere in the entire NT do we find "new members" seeking to be filled with the Spirit after the fashion you teach. We do, however, find Christians (who by definition possess and are possessed by God's Spirit) seeking to continue to be filled as an ongoing reality. But I've digressed. The only obedience Scripture teaches that is required for salvation, is to believe the gospel about Christ. That's it.
 
Based on Acts 2 ,10, 19 and the strong inference of Acts 8, we tell them to expect to speak in a new LANGUAGE ( not stammering, or repeated syllables) when they finally receive the Spirit thru seeking and asking.
 
Your understanding of Acts 2, 10, 8 and 19 is wrong. What you teach people is to strive to secure their own salvation; rather than resting in God's faithfulness. What you teach is the heresy of Pelagianism.
 
There is no time limit given to people for this seeking or praying. We encourage seekers to keep seeking for it for as long as it takes.
 
Again, "it"?
 
As long as people are indicating that they are seeking and praying for the Spirit there is no limit of weeks, months or years. If people who have been seeking are not receiving and for whatever reason give up and stop their asking, they are the ones that leave .
 
Well here's the rub: according to you, God is a liar. Go back to Luke 11:13 and read it again. Humans keeping their sides of the "bargain" by asking, but God defaulting on his? I don't think so.
 
We've found that we don't need to "drive them out" or something like that, they don't want to remain with us.
 
I'm not surprised. The frustration, disappointment and feeling of condemnation must be unbearable!
 
In our experience here no one who continued seeking to receive took longer than one year. We feel it would be very foolish and wrong to drive people out of the church if they are still seeking and praying to receive the Spirit.
 
So God believes in "testing" people to see if they're serious, huh? How does this fit your conception of grace?
 
The time that it takes for all who seek varies from person to person.
 
Of course it does, as you've summed up so well: it depends on the person, rather than on on God!
 
That's how we manage the process of people seeking and praying for the Holy Spirit. Is it cultic?
 
Cultic? Possibly. Heretical? Definitely.
 
We believe that the whole process can be managed with grace, patience and kindness.
 
The Bible, brother, doesn't teach becoming saved to be a process. It teaches it to be a gracious action of God, who stoops to lift the sinner out of his or her sin.
 
I totally disagree with any "methods" being used to kind of "induce" speaking new words in a new language.
 
And yet your methods reinforce precisely this practice.
 
I'm sorry, Brett, but your gospel isn't the Christian gospel. You teach a human-dependent workds-based form of (self) "righteousness". Now MrJonah might be fixated about the cultic aspects of what results from what you teach, but to me, the most important consideration relates to the teaching itself. What you have presented here is heresy.
 
Ian
 
 
(addendum - this is posted here due to the overcluttering of the other threads by other well meaning posters... Can we please keep this thread strictly just between Mr Jonah, Rev Ian Thomason and the Pilinuts ONLY... that's all
 
Thanks everyone for your understanding
 
Friend of Rev Ian )
 
Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:(Pillnut) - Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Date Posted:23/08/2006 12:13 PMCopy HTML

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Reply to : Anonymous



Brett & Sandra,I believe, perhaps, that you have both missed the point of this discussion. I will, of course, track down a copy of Bruce's NICNT commentary (I don't own it, and have never used it. Given that I have what is considered to be his best effort on theGreektext of Acts, I saw no need to purchase his commentary on theEnglishtext). However, what you quoted makes it seem likely that Bruce changed his view on the 12vs. 120before his death. Still, I also notice that, like Witherington, hedoesn'tseem to base (or reference)his (later) viewon the Greek text. If he did, you certainly didn't include the information in your quotes. If hedidn't, then we are faced with an earlier





Hi

I got an email from Ian Thomason this morning. He asked me to let everyone know that he checked into the idea that FF Bruce apparantly changed his opinion from the 12 apostles speaking in tongues to the 120 disciples between the first edition of his Greek commentary and the revised edition of his English one. Ian was in touch with the publishers of the book and they got back to him a couple of days ago. Apparently the commentary was revised after Bruce's death by one of their editors. In other words Bruce didn't change his position at all someone else decided to change it for him.

L
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.