Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Huh???"Salvation is not the most important thing; it never has.
I have never been a part of any charismatic/pentecostal fellowship that did not preach doctrine, preach the word boldly, and explain the gospel message."Take a look at Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2.
First, there was doctrine: He preached the Word to them. He was filled with the Spirit and spoke the Word of God boldly, explaining the gospel message."
Just like at charismatic and pentecostal meetings."Second, there was a conviction of the Holy Spirit--"
That is no proof that tongues are not legitimate if they occur when the gospel is preached. See Cornelius and his household."no baptism of the Holy Spirit, no speaking in tongues--..."
Charismatics/pentecostals are in complete agreement with that."but a Holy Spirit sent conviction of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the most important part of the Holy Spirit's ministry today. They were so convicted that they cried out: "Men and brethren what shall we do?"
In charismatic/pentecostal fellowships they are more than able to "tell them what to do" to be saved."Third, At that time, Peter was able to tell them what to do, and in verse 41 we find that 3,000 were saved."
Its utterly absurd to say or think (or to imply, as you seem to be doing) that what the poster meant when it was said that "salvation is the most important thing" is that "we must must never teach doctrine, or preach the gospel, because salvation is the most important thing.""But first the Word was preached. Doctrine was needed. Second the conviction of the Holy Spirit was needed. And then souls could be saved. Thus the saving of souls was not the most important thing in God's order of things. The preaching of the Word (doctrine) was. Without that they counld not be saved."
Unless you were there or at least have documented evidence ,how can you make a distinction between what you call modern day tongues and Biblical tongues.Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi all, seems we got off topic here. M4H, you hit on how tongues were really used in the early church. If a foreigner (person of a different language) was in a gathered assembly then the tongues speakers would speak to the foreigner in his language (there were many languages in a small area back then so this was common). This was a supernatural ability given to the tongues speaker. This was so the "service" would not be a waste to that person. While the tongues speaker was speaking the whole rest of the assembly would be just sitting there doing nothing so God gifted some to be able to interpret foreign languages, supernaturally. the interpreter would tell the assembly what the tongues speaker was saying to the foreigner, thus all in the assembly would be edified, which is required when a spiritual gift is used (1 Cor. 12:7). That is the only way I can see tongues working in the gathered assembly and all being edified. Paul knew that the use of a spirit given gift without the assembly ("body") being edified was a perversion of the spiritual gift. The miraculous gifts, maybe all the gifts, had a purpose to serve. Anyway, the miraculous nature of tongue speaking was the "sign" to the people of Isreal. If the gift wasn't totally supernatural then why would Isreal, or anybody, pay attention to it as a sign? Tongues today do not have a supernatural quality. I have never heard a tongue speaker purposely speak to a group of people in a language they did not know. Like DHK standing up and given a message in French, though he had never spoken french before. If that happened it would be a "miracle" and would make sense as a special "sign". But that does not happen and modern tongues do not bring with them a supernatural quality.
Also, I thought we were going to run through what Peter said about Joel but the conversation stopped after I posted hmmmmmm I wonder why?
(ha ha)
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
-Brian
Don't have to be there; just compare Scripture with Scripture. Take a careful look at Acts 2.Originally posted by atestring:
Unless you were there or at least have documented evidence ,how can you make a distinction between what you call modern day tongues and Biblical tongues.
The pat answer you give assumes that people agree with you. Dkh may agree with you but I humbly disagee.
Happy Thanksgiving to you also,
ATESTRING
Originally posted by DHK:
Don't have to be there; just compare Scripture with Scripture. Take a careful look at Acts 2.Originally posted by atestring:
Unless you were there or at least have documented evidence ,how can you make a distinction between what you call modern day tongues and Biblical tongues.
The pat answer you give assumes that people agree with you. Dkh may agree with you but I humbly disagee.
Happy Thanksgiving to you also,
ATESTRING
They spoke with other tongues (languages). The miracle was in the speaking. The Bible says it was right here. They spoke in languages that they hitherto never had learned beforehand. That was the miracle.
Yet in spite of that, these many people that had gathered from approximately 13 different language groups that were present said:
"How hear we every man in our own language?"
The disciples spoke in different languages. The others heard them speak in their own language. They heard different ones speak in their own langauge. There was the miracle that took place.
The word for "tongue" in the Bible always means "language." It has no other meaning. Therefore the modern tongue movement is not of God, for they do not speak in foreign tongues as the first century Christians did. They speak in a type of gibberish--something that is not a language; unknown to anyone. Brian already explained how Biblical tongues (foreign languages) were used in a church where those with a different linguistic background may have been present.
DHK [/QUOTe
You cannot prove your point. you just think people will buy your arguments. I personally do not.
It appears I did prove my point--through Scripture presented to you. Your response indicates that I did.Originally posted by atestring:
You cannot prove your point. you just think people will buy your arguments. I personally do not.
Salvation is not the most important thing in the Bible; it never has been. It is a very important thing, I agree. All throughout the Bible, God demands but one thing--obedience: both for the saved and the unsaved. If the unsaved will obey him he will get saved. If the saved will obey they will live a sanctified life. Obedience to God is the key throughout the Bible.Originally posted by tamborine lady:
![]()
DHK said:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by music4Him:
Amen ~Tam! Your right salvation is the most important thing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvation is not the most important thing; it never has. Take a look at Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2.
````````````````````````````````````````
Would you like to explain this statement in light of all the rebuttels you have gotten about your post of November 21, 2005 02:48 AM ??
Selah,
Tam
Originally posted by DHK:
It appears I did prove my point--through Scripture presented to you. Your response indicates that I did. [/QUOTOriginally posted by atestring:
You cannot prove your point. you just think people will buy your arguments. I personally do not.
You have not proved your point with scripture because scripture does not support your arguments. I have read your post for over 3 years and you have never convinced me that you have an argument. You just have a bias.
The problem wth this interpretation is that theOriginally posted by Bro. James:
A careful reading of Acts 2--
Reinforces a point previously made: the miracle was in the hearing not the speaking; each person hearing the gospel in his own dialect--with only one person speaking. Sure sounds like a divine translation--in real time. A similar, non-miraculous translation takes place in the U.N. assembly. Regardless of the tongue of the speaker, each hearer hears in his native tongue or whatever tongue he chooses. That is man-made high-tech translation which was not available on the Day of Pentecost.
Selah,
Bro. James
A Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family also~Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi all, seems we got off topic here. M4H, you hit on how tongues were really used in the early church. If a foreigner (person of a different language) was in a gathered assembly then the tongues speakers would speak to the foreigner in his language (there were many languages in a small area back then so this was common). This was a supernatural ability given to the tongues speaker. This was so the "service" would not be a waste to that person. While the tongues speaker was speaking the whole rest of the assembly would be just sitting there doing nothing so God gifted some to be able to interpret foreign languages, supernaturally. the interpreter would tell the assembly what the tongues speaker was saying to the foreigner, thus all in the assembly would be edified, which is required when a spiritual gift is used (1 Cor. 12:7). That is the only way I can see tongues working in the gathered assembly and all being edified. Paul knew that the use of a spirit given gift without the assembly ("body") being edified was a perversion of the spiritual gift. The miraculous gifts, maybe all the gifts, had a purpose to serve. Anyway, the miraculous nature of tongue speaking was the "sign" to the people of Isreal. If the gift wasn't totally supernatural then why would Isreal, or anybody, pay attention to it as a sign? Tongues today do not have a supernatural quality. I have never heard a tongue speaker purposely speak to a group of people in a language they did not know. Like DHK standing up and given a message in French, though he had never spoken french before. If that happened it would be a "miracle" and would make sense as a special "sign". But that does not happen and modern tongues do not bring with them a supernatural quality.
Also, I thought we were going to run through what Peter said about Joel but the conversation stopped after I posted hmmmmmm I wonder why?
(ha ha)
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
-Brian
If the Scripture that I have presented to you didn't support what I say, then you would have something to say about it. But you don't. Your only rebuttal is: "I am not convinced." So what.Originally posted by atestring:
You have not proved your point with scripture because scripture does not support your arguments. I have read your post for over 3 years and you have never convinced me that you have an argument. You just have a bias.