Gifts of the Spirit have ceased?????????

[Don]

At this point, Brian, it doesn't matter if I explain anything. Your position was that believers do not automatically receive the Holy Ghost; you have now agreed that your position was in error (which, by the way, was a pretty big admission, and took a pretty big person to make that admission).

That said, however, please pay attention to Acts 19:2 -- "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

Baptized with John's baptism, not even hearing of the Holy Ghost.... Paul's subsequent statement that John had taught them that they should believe on the one who followed John, that is, Jesus Christ.... Sounds to me like they followed John's teaching of repentence, but that they hadn't fully followed the teaching of believing on Jesus Christ.

Isn't it amazing and wonderful how Paul immediately jumped to the core root of the problem? Their belief in Jesus Christ? And that once they had done that, and been baptized in His name, then they received the Holy Spirit?

Now, pay very close attention to what Chemnitz/Godmetal just wrote to you, because it's something that I've been trying to get you to explain, too: Phillip preached Jesus to them, and they believed and were baptized, but they had to send for the apostles to lay hands on them in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

In other words, there's a lot more going on than just "be baptized in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will come upon you and you will speak in tongues." But guess what? It's you, the Oneness Pentecostal person, who needs to explain it.

I know you're answering these posts from work or school, and that's why you only post during the day, and not in the evenings or at night. When you have time, you should peruse some of the links Lorelei provided.

[ May 10, 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

[atestring]

In jack Deere's Book "Surprised By The Spirit"
He says , that if you put a new Christian in a room by himself with only a Bible,they would never come up with a cessasionist Doctrine.
I whole heartedly agree!!!!

 

[Ron]

I just have one question? Is God an "indian giver"?
Now I don't mean to offend any american indian friends out there, but do you understand the question? Does God give gifts then take them away. Now I by no means believe that the "power gifts" are as widely manifest as our oneness pentecostal friends believe, I don't see any scriptural evidence of Jesus or the disciples running up and down the synagoges, but I don't believe it's in the Fathers Heart to give a gift and then take it away either. I believe the power gifts are to be used in the ministry field, not in the church only. Such as witnessing to someone and recieving a word of knowledge that leads them to Christ. I have witnessed this.

Your thoughts please

<>< Ron <><

[ May 12, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

 

[Sularis]

I think you better define what you mean by "Indian
giver". Although I know what the phrase means - I mean the context

Ie - Once given the the gifts never fade from the believer

Or

Once given the gifts never fade from the church

Or something else entirely that Im missing

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Oneness, you set yourself up for this. act 8:16 "for He had not yet fallen on any of them, because they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." I guess you just wanted to call attention to the fact that baptism in Jesus name is really an invalid baptism.

Ok I dont have alot of time to answer all the posts but I will be back on Monday, but Chemitz what in the World are you talking about?

Someone else said that I was the one that needed to explain this chapter, but why can you guys not take your own advice and take it for what it says?

Keep on praying Godmetal you will see the light. There is still hope. Where there is life there is HOPE

BTW, It was funny this morning when I was praising God I started speaking in tongues. Guess there are somethings you guys just dont understand.

Sorry about that.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ron:
I just have one question? Is God an "indian giver"?
Now I don't mean to offend any american indian friends out there, but do you understand the question? Does God give gifts then take them away.

To answer your own question study the life of Paul. Sometimes he had the gift of healing, sometimes he did not. When he did not, was God then an "Indian-giver?" Paul was unable to heal himself when he had a thorn in the flesh. He was unable to heal Timothy and told him to take a little wine for his stomach's sake. Timothy probably had dyssentery. He was unable to heal Trophimus, who he left sick at Miletus. He was unable to heal a fellow-laborer, Epaphroditus, who was so sick he was near unto death. Yet Paul did heal. "Does God give gifts and then take them away?"
DHK

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Sularis:
I think you better define what you mean by "Indian
giver". Although I know what the phrase means - I mean the context

Ie - Once given the the gifts never fade from the believer

Or

Once given the gifts never fade from the church

Or something else entirely that Im missing

I don't believe Gods power ever fades unless we quench the spirit because of our own sins.

I mean I don't believe God would give gifts to the church and then take them away again. If Jesus used the gift of word of knowledge in witnessing, such as with the woman at the well, (John 4:16-18) then don't you think He also has His gifts readily available to those who accept them, to be used in our witnessing.

When Paul talked of the sword of the spirit, the Word of God, he was not talking about the bible (logos), he was talking about the spoken word of God (rhema, now I'm not a Greek scholar or anything but thats my understand, please correct me if I'm wrong) So that stands to reason that God will give us the "Word" to cut to their heart in order to bring them to repentence.


<>< Ron <><

 

[Don]

Brian,

Chemnitz gave that response in answer to your question: "But now I can show you that In Acts 8. they were believers but still had not received the Holy Ghost. Can you explain that."

His pointing out of Acts 8:16 caused him to ask you to please explain why, if they had been baptized in the name of Jesus, the Holy Ghost didn't fall upon them.

I asked the same question, but in a different manner: Why was Phillip able to baptize them in the name of Jesus, but he wasn't enough for the Holy Ghost to fall upon them?

So which tongue did you speak in this morning? What was the interpretation?

 

[Chemnitz]

Ok I dont have alot of time to answer all the posts but I will be back on Monday, but Chemitz what in the World are you talking about?

Someone else said that I was the one that needed to explain this chapter, but why can you guys not take your own advice and take it for what it says?

Keep on praying Godmetal you will see the light. There is still hope. Where there is life there is HOPE

I am praying for you oneness. Like you said where there is life there is hope. We have taken our own advice. And Acts 8 says that they didn't receive the holy spirit because they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus. You can't blame it on unbelief because they believed.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ok I dont have alot of time to answer all the posts but I will be back on Monday, but Chemitz what in the World are you talking about?

Someone else said that I was the one that needed to explain this chapter, but why can you guys not take your own advice and take it for what it says?

Keep on praying Godmetal you will see the light. There is still hope. Where there is life there is HOPE

I am praying for you oneness. Like you said where there is life there is hope. We have taken our own advice. And Acts 8 says that they didn't receive the holy spirit because they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus. You can't blame it on unbelief because they believed.</font>[/QUOTE]Who is blameing it on unbelief? That was My exact point. According to what you are telling me or Lorelie is telling me as soon as someone believes he/she is filled with the Holy Ghost.

Chemnitz gave that response in answer to your question: "But now I can show you that In Acts 8. they were believers but still had not received the Holy Ghost. Can you explain that."

Yea, it took a little bit more than easy beleiveism to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost

His pointing out of Acts 8:16 caused him to ask you to please explain why, if they had been baptized in the name of Jesus, the Holy Ghost didn't fall upon them.

I dont know the reason, but sometimes God Says Yes, Sometimes he says NO, and Sometimes he says wait.

I asked the same question, but in a different manner: Why was Phillip able to baptize them in the name of Jesus, but he wasn't enough for the Holy Ghost to fall upon them?

I dont know, regardless they still had to be baptized in the Name of Jesus.

So which tongue did you speak in this morning? What was the interpretation?[/QB]

[/QUOTE]

An Unknown tongue. There was not one

1 Corth 14:2. For he that speaketh * in an unknown tongue speaketh * not unto men,but unto God: for no man understandeth * him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh * mysteries.

 

[Briguy]

Sularis wrote:
Briguy - YOU stated that the gifts no longer exist IN this age

I stated examples of me using some of those gifts.

You then stated that the gifts are permanent

To this I agree - but I also suggest that God imparts temporary gifts as well; as needed to fit the situation. Since my prayers and such have not healed since that one instance

Hi S, I only said that the miracoulous gifts were not for now. Those gifts were permanent but all who had them died by the first century. Gifts we get today ARE permanent. I will always contend if you prayed and someone was healed it was a miracle, i.e. a supernatural answer to prayer not a gift. Also, please respond to the FACT that prophecy means "to speak before" (i.e. in front of people) It is not in the gift context, the telling of the future, it just has nothing to do with future predictions.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Chemnitz]

Who is blameing it on unbelief? That was My exact point. According to what you are telling me or Lorelie is telling me as soon as someone believes he/she is filled with the Holy Ghost.

My point is that they hadn't received the Holy Ghost because they had only received baptism in the Name of Jesus. Your "easy believism" argument holds as much water as a leaky sieve, because the passage gives no indication that they did anything more outside of the apostles laying on their hands.

An Unknown tongue. There was not one

So your praying in tongues is of no use. You may want to read the rest of 1 Cor 14 before bragging about a prayer in tongues.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Who is blameing it on unbelief? That was My exact point. According to what you are telling me or Lorelie is telling me as soon as someone believes he/she is filled with the Holy Ghost.

My point is that they hadn't received the Holy Ghost because they had only received baptism in the Name of Jesus. Your "easy believism" argument holds as much water as a leaky sieve, because the passage gives no indication that they did anything more outside of the apostles laying on their hands.

An Unknown tongue. There was not one

So your praying in tongues is of no use. You may want to read the rest of 1 Cor 14 before bragging about a prayer in tongues.</font>[/QUOTE].

Chem, I am not bragging that I spoke in tongues, I am just letting you know no matter what you say will not change my mind that it is real. You can show me and explain how you interpret the bible,

I am telling you that it is real. How are you going to take that away from someone? By telling them what you believe] the bible says?

You see I can show them what the bible says and then they can experience what the Bible says for them selves.

No matter what you say I have the evidence that backs up what I am saying. And what 1 Corth 14 is saying. You either have a choise, except what the bible says about it or just continue looking at yourself in the mirror for the rest of your life.

 

[Briguy]

DHK wrote:
"To answer your own question study the life of Paul. Sometimes he had the gift of healing, sometimes he did not. When he did not, was God then an "Indian-giver?" Paul was unable to heal himself when he had a thorn in the flesh."

DHK, I respect you a lot but in this area I think you may be missing something. Paul would not have healed himself, though he could have. This would be a mis-use of the gift. He himself wrote that gifts are for the edification of the "body". Healing himself would not edify the body. If you look at when Peter and Paul healed they always preached the gospel after that. The gift of healing was a gift to forward the gospel and they knew that well and would not have used "the gift" in a place where preaching was not to occur. Paul prayed that God would remove the thorn bur he did not use the gift of healing on himself. We know this because all the other gifts we can see operate at our will and the miraculous gifts, in their time, would have been the same. Please take a further look at this possibility anyway, as it makes perfect sense to me. I know you don't see any of the gifts still being here but think about in the terms I have outlined, maybe you will change your mind on this one Even an old dog can learn a new trick once in a while

In Our Savior,
Brian

 

[atestring]

Why does this subject keep getting so many post?

 

[Don]

So which tongue did you speak in this morning? What was the interpretation?
--------------------------------------------------

An Unknown tongue. There was not one.

So were you silent?

1 Cor 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Were you silent? Or did you pray in tongues out loud, even though there was no interpreter?

[ May 13, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

[Don]

Chemnitz, Oneness, we've reached the point of kicking the dead horse.

Oneness has already admitted that the Holy Spirit fell upon those that believed, but hadn't been baptized or had the apostle lay hands on them yet (Acts 10).

On the other side of the same token, the Holy Spirit did not fall upon those that believed and were baptized until the apostles laid hands on them (Acts 8).

And we know from Acts 19 that Paul had to lay hands on the disciples of John after they were baptized in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

Gentlemen, I humbly submit to you that the Holy Spirit can come upon you through the laying on of hands by an apostle (as evidenced by Acts 8 and Acts 19); or that the Holy Spirit can come upon you the instant you believe without the laying on of hands (as evidenced by Acts 10).

Are we agreed on these points?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:
Chemnitz, Oneness, we've reached the point of kicking the dead horse.

Oneness has already admitted that the Holy Spirit fell upon those that believed, but hadn't been baptized or had the apostle lay hands on them yet (Acts 10).

On the other side of the same token, the Holy Spirit did not fall upon those that believed and were baptized until the apostles laid hands on them (Acts 8).

And we know from Acts 19 that Paul had to lay hands on the disciples of John after they were baptized in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

Gentlemen, I humbly submit to you that the Holy Spirit can come upon you through the laying on of hands by an apostle (as evidenced by Acts 8 and Acts 19); or that the Holy Spirit can come upon you the instant you believe without the laying on of hands (as evidenced by Acts 10).

Are we agreed on these points?

I agree with that. Acts 2, they received the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands, and also they received the Holy Ghost after they believed.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:

So which tongue did you speak in this morning? What was the interpretation?

Nope Don I was not silent. But I was not out of order. Everyone else was praising God and lifting their voices so It was not like i was out of order in doing so.

 

[Don]

Brian, that is so wrong!!!

Did you just admit to us that your church is violating scripture?!?

I gave you the scripture where it specificially says if you don't have an interpreter, then be silent.

What you're telling me is: Everyone else was doing it, even though it goes against scripture, so it's a-okay; and/or You don't care what scripture says about the proper use of the gift of tongues.

Next you're gonna tell me that you're about to jump off a cliff because everyone else in your church is doing it, aren't you?

1 Cor 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.