Observations on the closed 'tongues' thread

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
I am very much aware that the promise is the infilling of the Spirit of God. I am also aware of the fact that "tongues" is the evidence of that promise. I wasn't taking it out of context.

If that is true then why don't tongues follow every time a believer is filled with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts. It just ain't so.

If you will notice, in Acts 8:12, they believed Philip's preaching concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Have you ever asked yourself what Philip preached? If in the beginning they preached repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, why
would you assume that Philip preached anything else? Keep in mind that Philip was in that upper room on the Day of Pentecost. He knew the meaning of Acts 2:38 very well.
Yes they were baptized in His name, but didn't receive the Holy Ghost until later.

DHK, you can't get around it.

When the people of Samaria (Acts 8) believed and trusted Christ upon the preaching of Philip, they did not speak in tongues. Were they then not saved?
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]No, not until they received the Spirit of God. Acts 8:17 ( Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:16) For as yet he was fallen upon none of them only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

So, you can see that if it took *only* believing in Jesus Christ and not receiving the Spirit of God (as well as being baptized) the people at Samaria would have been in great shape.

You all can believe what you want, but it takes more than the sinners prayer!

I realize that nothing that I say will change your minds, but I have learned a lot, as to what Baptists believe. It has been interesting!

MEE

[ June 28, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by The Briguy:
[QB]MEE, The following verses go directly against what you just wrote.
1 Cor. 12:28: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
12:29: Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
12:30: Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

--That is right, not all have the "gift of tongues" or do they all have the "gift of interpretation." Those two gifts, as well as the other seven, are for the church. The "gift of tongues" is used with the "gift of interpretation. The Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, should not to be confused with the "gift of tongues," although they are both of the Spirit of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One more question:
How do you interpret Paul saying "tongues" was a sign for unbelievers and then referencing Isaiah 28?

--Why would a person that has the Holy Ghost need someone to speak in tongues to make a believer out of him/her, if they already have the Holy Ghost?

As far as Isaiah 28, I don't know exactly what you are referring to.

MEE

 

[hrhema]

I don't have to study what I know is true. Paul explicitly said tongues would cease when he that is perfect has come. He has not come! Again you take scripture out of context and fit it to your beliefs. Paul did not say they would fade away on their own without giving` a reason. He gave the reason. Neither did Paul teach that tongues would cease with the end of the APostolic age. It is not in the Bible anywhere and what is said in Isaiah and what Paul stated that Tongues is for a SIGN to the unbeliever is that the supernatural stirs souls and makes them realize that God is present. Read it again for yourselves.

So many of you are following the Campbellite teachings whom the majority of Baptists have disavowed.

I have never heard many Baptists pray for anyone to be healed and expected it to happen. They go through the motion but have absolutely no faith in their prayers or belief and Jesus said again in Mark 16 that they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. Again another sign for believers that did not end with the Apostolic Age and you have absolutely no proof that it did.

The only place you find that tongues were a known language was in Acts 2. Again Paul spoke of praying in the spirit and this is praying in tongues because why would he pray the interpretation?

Again the gift of tongues and interpretation is the tongues that Paul was speaking about not the tongues when a person is praying in the spirit.
Again DHK and others cannot separate the issue of tongues as pentecostals can.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

If you will notice, in Acts 8:12, they believed Philip's preaching concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Have you ever asked yourself what Philip preached? If in the beginning they preached repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, why
would you assume that Philip preached anything else? Keep in mind that Philip was in that upper room on the Day of Pentecost. He knew the meaning of Acts 2:38 very well.
Yes they were baptized in His name, but didn't receive the Holy Ghost until later.

What you believe is akin to heresy. It goes against the bulk of the teaching of Scripture, such as John 3:16-18,36; Rom.10:9,10,13; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; 1John 5:10-13, and so many others. Let me give you some advice. Never establish your doctrine on a book of history such as the book of Acts. You will always come up with faulty doctrine, such as you have just done. The Book of Acts is a historical book, giving a history of the Acts of the Apostles, and a history of the church, a church in transition. If you want doctrine, teaching, you need to go to other books FIRST. The teachings of Jesus are found in the gospel. The teachings of Paul (concerning the church) are found in the epistles. The teachings concerning end times are found in Revelation. Look for doctrine in the epistles first. For example, the Book of Romans is a theological treatise on the theme of soteriology. If you want to know about salvation that is where to look, not in the book of Acts. Then after studying the Book of Romans go to the Book of Acts. If you find that your theology in the Book of Acts is not agreeing with the teaching of Romans you know that what you have learned from Acts is wrong, because it is not a book of instruction, it is a book of history. The Bible does not contradict itself. Acts does agree with Romans. Your theology our foundation must first come from a book of instruction.

What does it say in this great book written entirely on the subject of salvation:
Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Now we go back to the book of Acts:
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
---If you add anything else other than what Paul has already taught in his book on salvation, you teach heresy. The people of Samaria were saved in verse 12 when they believed on the preaching of Philip. Philip would not have baptized unsaved people. The idea of such is preposterous! They were filled with the Holy Spirit later on. That had nothing to do with their salvation. Remember this was a church in transition. This is the history of the church. Don't take your doctrine solely from the Book of Acts. If it does not accord with the epistles and other books, it is wrong.
DHK

 

[GrannyGumbo]

"I don't know how long you have lived in Louisiana but I met more than one group of Baptists in Louisiana who believe in speaking in Tongues. Matter of fact there is a Baptist camp outside of Baton Rouge and the workers told the Pentecostals that they were Bapticostals. I don't have to study what I know is true." [hrhema]

You may have met folks who practiced 'tongues' but I assure you, they were NOT true Baptists & were following false teachings! As far as the Bapt.camp workers saying that, sounds to me like 'some have crept in unawares'...

A careful, prayerful study of the perfect and completed Word of God, will result in the Holy Spirit leading you(who wears the label "Baptist") into ALL truth, as well as away from all of satan's LIES.

 

[MEE]

Don't take your doctrine solely from the Book of Acts. If it does not accord with the epistles and other books, it is wrong.
DHK

Good grief DHK, you have the cart before the horse!!! Surley you don't believe what you posted?

Are you saying that the NT Church was born after the Acts of the Apostles? If so, what do you call the meaning of the second chapter of Acts?

You just blew my mind!

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
Good grief DHK, you have the cart before the horse!!! Surley you don't believe what you posted?

1Tim.4:11-16
11 These things command and teach.
12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Paul emphasized doctrine, not history; he emphasizes doctrine, not experiences. He says to meditate on the things that were commanded and taught him--doctrine. He was to take heed--be careful about doctrine. Continue in the doctrine. There must be something important here about doctrine.
If you considered carefully the doctrine taught in 1Cor.12-14, you would never speak in tongues again. If you only used doctrinal books and not the historical book of Acts, your heretical doctrines would fail, and you would not have a leg to stand on. Your heresies are all drawn from a history book. Think carefully about that. Omit the book of Acts, a book of history, and not primarily of doctrine, and you have nothing to stand on. I am not saying there is no doctrine in the Book of Acts, for there is. What I am saying is that it is primarily a book of history, and we cannot take our doctrine and base our teaching primarily on that book. If you want to know about salvation, MEE, study the book of Romans. Paul devotes 16 chapters to the subject of salvations and deals with this subject in a very thorough manner. Why does your view of salvation contradict what Paul has to say?
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB]

Originally posted by MEE:
[qb]Good grief DHK, you have the cart before the horse!!! Surley you don't believe what you posted?
Omit the book of Acts, a book of history, and not primarily of doctrine, and you have nothing to stand on. I am not saying there is no doctrine in the Book of Acts, for there is. What I am saying is that it is primarily a book of history, and we cannot take our doctrine and base our teaching primarily on that book. If you want to know about salvation, MEE, study the book of Romans. Paul devotes 16 chapters to the subject of salvations and deals with this subject in a very thorough manner. Why does your view of salvation contradict what Paul has to say?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your right, there is doctrine in the book of Acts! What you don't seem to understand is that the epistles were written to churches that had already been "born of water and of the Spirit." These people were the "church." Paul was instructing them in how to live under Grace, as well as other things. Believe me, Pentecostals don't just go by the book of Acts. They probably hold closer to the epistles than most of your denominal churches. I'm talking about your Apostolic Pentecostal Churches.

Why would Paul tell them anything new or
different, about being born into the church, in the epistles? What do we do, tear out the book of Acts, the history of where it shows when the NT Church was born?

 

[blackbird]

GrannyGumbo,

Read your above thread. You hit the nail right on the head. I can tell that you are standing right beside "Plumb Bob" Jesus when what you say square up with scripture.

As for the camp right outside of Baton Rouge calling everybody Babicostals--I ain't one but I probably know the camp being spoken about.

I ain't Babicostal but when Almighty God speaks to me through scripture laying on the table before me--sometimes--it makes me want to run around the room like I'm at a Sioux Indian War Party--but my wife reminds me that the Pastor and his family live in a glass house--so, Blackbird, simmer down.

No experience, no tongues. Just scripture--final authority--final experience!

 

[DHK]

MEE,
You have a habit of taking verses out of context from the Book of Acts, and even building your doctrine solely from the Book of Acts--a book of history, a book which shows the church in transition. The Book of Romans deals solely with salvation. I challenge you to prove your heretical doctrines from that book alone.
DHK

[ June 29, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
MEE,
You have a habit of taking verses out of context from the Book of Acts, and even building your doctrine solely from the Book of Acts--a book of history, a book which shows the church in transition. The Book of Romans deals solely with salvation. I challenge you to prove your heretical doctrines from that book alone.
DHK

I do not take verses out of context or build doctrine from the book of Acts. What's the matter with you? Did I hit a nerve?

The book of Romans is a book of instructions or doctrine, as well as the other epistles, to a church that was alreay considerd to be part of the NT bride.

Good grief DHK, you must be upset today. Try smiling and get an attitude adjustment.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

I do not take verses out of context or build doctrine from the book of Acts. What's the matter with you? Did I hit a nerve?
The book of Romans is a book of instructions or doctrine, as well as the other epistles, to a church that was alreay considerd to be part of the NT bride.

I beg to differ with you. You do take verses out of context. And I think that the nerve that was hit was yours. You do not want to take a challenge and prove your doctrine only from the Book of Romans, a book of doctrine. Again, base your doctrine on a book of teaching or instruction, and then see if the Book of Acts is in agreement with it, not the other way around.

The Book of Acts was a book of transition. The church was changing. For example the heresy that you were trying to espouse from Acts chapter 8; you don't even take into consideration that this is the first time in history that the gospel has gone forth to the gentiles. It is a history book, a story of the church in transition. And you pull a verse out of context, verse 12, where it says they believed and were baptized, and conclude that they were not saved!!! What nonsense!

Go to the Book of Romans and try to prove the same thing. You can't do it. You're inventing your doctrine from the Book of Acts, not taking into consideration the fact that the church was undergoing constant change. Why do you think the church had to have a council in Acts 15? It was to decide for good, the issue of the law and circumcision in relation to salvation and the gentiles. Paul wrote Romans after that. We don't base our theology on experiences, but on the Word of God. Take heed unto the doctrine.
DHK

 

[MEE]

DHK, answer me one thing! Who were the epistles written to, as a group?

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
DHK, answer me one thing! Who were the epistles written to, as a group?
MEE

They were written mostly to local churches. Some of them were written to pastors of local churches. They were written to give instruction to those people in those churches, to solve problems, to answer questions, to give advice, to give consolation, and above all to teach doctrine. In the epistle of Romans the Spirit of God inspired Paul to write a thorough discourse on soteriology. Every Christian needs to understand the various aspects of salvation. Some people are very confused about it, as is evidenced by this board. Peter wrote to those facing persecution. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about the Second Coming. He wrote to the Corinthians about a variety of problems including the misuse of the gifts of the Spirit. Paul wrote to the Philippians an epistle of rejoicing. All of these are applicable to us today.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
DHK, answer me one thing! Who were the epistles written to, as a group?
MEE

They were written mostly to local churches. Some of them were written to pastors of local churches. They were written to give instruction to those people in those churches, to solve problems, to answer questions, to give advice, to give consolation, and above all to teach doctrine. DHK</font>[/QUOTE]That's correct! They were written to "The Church." Ones that had already believed, repented, been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and had been filled with the Holy Ghost, so what is your problem? I said the very same thing in my last post.

You don't find, in the epistles, where it says to do anything contrary to Acts 2:38. The epistles are for us today, as well as then. I don't know what you are trying to imply, but you keep going around in circles.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

You don't find, in the epistles, where it says to do anything contrary to Acts 2:38. The epistles are for us today, as well as then. I don't know what you are trying to imply, but you keep going around in circles.

I'm not going around in circles, neither am I the one confused MEE.

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Notice this verse says "ALL SCRIPTURE," is given by inspiration of God, NOT, "only the book of Acts" is inspired of God. Why do you refuse to use the epistles MEE? Why can you not prove your doctrine from a book of doctrine (i.e. Romans), instead of a book of history (i.e. Acts)? You still haven't answered that question, neither have you demonstrated that you can answer it.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Notice this verse says "ALL SCRIPTURE," is given by inspiration of God, NOT, "only the book of Acts" is inspired of God. Why do you refuse to use the epistles MEE? Why can you not prove your doctrine from a book of doctrine (i.e. Romans), instead of a book of history (i.e. Acts)? You
still haven't answered that question, neither have you demonstrated that you can answer it.
DHK[/QB]

"Never" have I implied that one doesn't use the epistles. Before they can be applied to a Christians's life one has to be born again. You won't find, in the epistles, where is says as to how to be saved or born again. The ones that received the epistles were already "born again."

DHK, why can't you see that? What you are wanting me to say is that a person doesn't have to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and to receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, isn't it?
Don't hold your breath because it won't ever happen. I will not denounce the Oneness of God and believe in your Trinity. I'm not a branch of the RCC.

You still have the cart before the horse DHK. You can believe what you want, just don't try to convience me of *your* doctrine. It's not scriptural!

I've tried to be nice about this whole subject, but you are starting to irritate me by calling what I believe heretical.

If this doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will. Find someone else who will listen!

MEE

 

[MEE]

BTW, what has happened to the other posters? I'm starting to feel like a fish in a bowl. Tha't OK, I know how Jesus felt now. He was always in the minority.

MEE

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Not that it matters, but the granny is still here and she is reading in Acts 10:48, where they were baptized in the name of the Lord: The Father(Jude 5) The Son(Philippians 2:11) The Holy Ghost(2Corinthians 3:17) [KJV, of course]

 

[susanpet]

I am still around and have been just reading. I find that arguing over this topic to be unfruitful. Some people will never change unless God convicts them of their error.
But there are countless numbers turning from this kind of doctrine, I have read all about it on another site. Many testimonies about coming out of this bondage.
I will continue to believe in the shed blood of Christ and His grace is sufficient.
Others can believe what they want. We will all stand before the throne one day and give an account of what we have done for the Lord. I believe I am the least of His children, but I know He loves me as much as anyone that speaks in tongues.
How do I know? Because His spirit bears witness.
He set up housekeeping in my heart the day I accepted Him as Lord and Savior. It is Jesus that lives in me and I in Him. I intend to finish this race although there are many obstacles in my way.
I pray that every one here keeps the faith and keeps on living for Him.
We need to always keep our eyes on Jesus.

Keep looking up!
In Christ
Susan