The diffrence of Tongues in Acts and at Corinth

Brian,
I have not been ignoring your post or don's post. LOL!
I will get back to you on that when I have more time tonight.
BTW, did you look up the link I posted?
Let me know your thoughts on it...please!!
Brian,
I am going to be in Kenosha soon, are you going to allow me to introduce you to Ron Auch?????
Let me know...
Naomi
I guess you consider me a sister in the Lord!!
(You referred to me as sister)

 

Hi Naomi, yes I consider you a sister because you confess Christ. Even though your theology is a little wacky (meant with christian affection), you seem to want to spread the gospel and you have a good attitude about our areas of disagreement so calling you sister does not seem much of a stretch. Now, tell me more about this Ron that you would want me to meet. Where does he stand on woman preachers, and the miraculous gifts, just for starters.

what brings you to Kenosha? I actually live in Racine and work in Kenosha.

Oh yea, I looked at the site and do not agree with much. Most of it seems to be the take a little scripture and make a big theory type of stuff. It is well thought out though so I give the writer credit for that.

In Christ,
Brian

[ July 31, 2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

Oneness, I think you missed my question: So why were the disciples of John baptized (in water) a second time?

 

Thanks for all who welcomed me back, I have only been back a short time in the Baptist only forum and that was my first post in this section. Not sure how long I will stay, and I don't have the time that I used to post anyway. We will see how it goes. I have missed you, but I am already feeling dizzy from the way these posts go round and round. I figured after all this time things may have gotten further, but I can see we are still at the same stand still.

 

Yes, they knew who Jesus was, but is that enough? Did they know he had died, did they know he was ressurected, did they know he was sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father? Knowing who he is, isn't enough to receive the Holy Spirit because knowing who he isisn't enough for salvation.

You seem to ignore the difference between the OT and the NT. No one in the OT had the Holy Spirit baptism, do you agree?

Since only those who were alive at the time of Christ were the only ones who lived under both the Old and New testament, they are the only ones that had to be baptized twice. They were the only ones given the Spirit after "believing".

We have discussed how God gave His Spirit to first the Jews in Acts 2, then the Samaritans in Acts 8, then the Gentiles in 10. As word spread those alive at the time got to become a part of this glorious new covenant with God.

To show you the difference, please tell me how many times you were baptized with water? As someone above pointed out, they were baptized with water twice. What is your explanation for that?

Do you notice any difference at all between those who lived under both covenants and us today?

~Lorelei

 

I can't believe after all this time you still go in the same circles. By now you have to know we don't believe that!

We are not saying we don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved, we are saying we have the Holy Ghost.

You just don't believe us because we haven't spoken in tongues.

You said at the beginning of this thread you had a great thesis written by your pastor.

*shakes head in disbelief* I cant believe that ONENESS is still looking for answers outside of the Word of God.

~Lorelei

 

Naomi:

There hasn't been an overwhelming amount of questions and I would rather hear your own answers to my questions. Along with my other "few" questions, I would like to add one:

You said you believe we are saved, which is great. However, if we are saved, in your opinion, and we do not speak in tongues, then what is the need for tongues, assuming they still exist as you say. It would seem to me that ALL who are saved would speak in tongues.

God Bless.........Alex

[ July 30, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

This was a double!!

[ July 30, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

DHK, first of all I don't have any problem with knowing where the Spirit of God comes from. It comes from heaven. Acts 2:2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven.......... Got that?

As far as the Spirit of God being of the flesh or the devil, don't you think that we, as Spirit filled Christians, would be the first to know if it was of another source?

The baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as well as the gift of tongues have not ceased! Maybe by your interpretation, but not according to the Bible. Still remaning Christian like here!

That which is "perfect" or "complete" is the end of the Gentile dispensation, in other words, "THE RAPTURE of the CHURCH."

You show doubt in your postings by saying things like, "could very well be demonic or just emotionally deluded."

Believe what you want, but the Jews got where they are today because of "unbelief."

MEE

 

MEE
"DHK, first of all I don't have any problem with knowing where the Spirit of God comes from. It comes from heaven. Acts 2:2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven.......... Got that?"
--Is there a sound from heaven (like a mighty rushing wind) every time you speak in tongues, MEE? Then, according to your statement you DO have a problem with knowing where the Spirit of God comes from? And if that is not what you hear every time then it must not be the Spirit of God!!

"As far as the Spirit of God being of the flesh or the devil, don't you think that we, as Spirit filled Christians, would be the first to know if it was of another source?"
--MEE, you are going in circles contradicting yourself. How can you tell if your source is not the devil? How do you know what Spirit-filled even is if your source really is the devil? What you call "Spirit-filled" might just be another one of your typical charismatic emotional experiences. I don't believe that you really know what it means to be Spirit-filled if want the truth. It is just a claim you make based on an emotional experience, and not on the Word of God.

"The baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as well as the gift of tongues have not ceased! Maybe by your interpretation, but not according to the Bible. Still remaning Christian like here!"
---No, we are speaking according to the Bible. There are many questions that have been asked you many times that you just have no answer for. The answer lies in the fact that Biblical tongues have ceased. What you have is a fake. It is not a real language like Biblical tongues. They are not for unbelieving Jews like Biblical tongues. They are gibberish--a forgery.

That which is "perfect" or "complete" is the end of the Gentile dispensation, in other words, "THE RAPTURE of the CHURCH."
---No, context demonstrates that it is the Word of God. It is not speaking of dispensations at all. It is speaking of "revelation."

"You show doubt in your postings by saying things like, "could very well be demonic or just emotionally deluded."
---The doubt comes in that I don't know for sure which source: the flesh or the devil. There is no doubt in my mind that it is one or the other. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not of God. This is serious. Not only could your source of tongues be just from the flesh or have started out that way, it could now be demonic. That is a distinct possibility.

Believe what you want, but the Jews got where they are today because of "unbelief."
---Yes they did. You are the same way. You would rather put your trust in an experience than in the Word of God. The Jews refused the Words of the prophets. They killed them. They rejected the message of God's Word. You have done the same. You have sacrificed the Word of God for an experience. That is a shame.
DHK

 

As promised Brian: I will respond to your questions .
First one:
Naomi, read that scripture closely. These good folks hadn't heard that there was a Holy Ghost and you want to say that they were already saved.

I know these men were baptized in water by John the Baptist. The baptism of repentance. John had told them they should believe on the one who will come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus (Acts 19:4, so they were baptized in water for the remission of their sins. The baptism that Paul referred to, was the baptism of Fire. They laid hands on them and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. This is what I meant bt a separate occurrence.

All throughout the New Testament, we can see the disciples, along with others laying their hands on people to be filled with the Spirit. Why would they have to do this if people received the Holy Spirit by being baptized in water alone?



Naomi, you mentioned you read Isaiah 28 but offered no alternative meaning to what it means in relation to the "sign" that Paul talked about. If you can't offer another reason Paul wrote what he did then I must be right

Well, sort of....I think we agree that Paul is using both Deut. 28, and Isaiah 28, to point out that Men will still choose to harden their hearts towards God, and not hear Him. So, yes!
In this case the tongues were for a sign for the unbeliever.

If tongues were only used as a sign for the unbelieving Jew, why did they continue using tongues all throughout the New Testament? It was not only for the unbelieving Jew.
Why did Paul say that if an unbeliever walked into a service, he would be confused to hear people speaking in tongues? (in this case tongues were not used as a sign to the unbeliever, but to the believer's, if there be an ibterpreter)
Why did Paul tell us that we are speaking to God when we speak in tongues?
I Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:
This also would not be a sign for the unbeliever.

So, putting these scriptures all together in context, it would all make sense that:
#1. Tongues were used as a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
#2. Tongues were used as a prayer language unto God.
#3. Tongues were used to edify the body of believer's when there was an interpretation.
#4. Tongues were given to christians after they received the Holy Spirit (as in Acts).

Whew! Hope I answered the question! LOL!
Naomi



[ July 31, 2002, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Naomi ]

 

Originally posted by Lorelei:
I am already feeling dizzy from the way these posts go round and round. I figured after all this time things may have gotten further, but I can see we are still at the same stand still.

LOL! I agree with you!

Originally posted by Naomi:
I would be a fool to say that people who do not speak in tongues, are not filled with the Holy Spirit.
How do I reconcile this with my statement about evidence? I don't know!

Does it bother you that the two statements seem to contradict themselves? Would you care to explore that further? Search for the truth? It can't be both can it?

~Lorelei

I think it can be both. I did not seek after speaking in tongues, I was seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave me the utterance. This is what happened to me. This happened before I even read the bible! Then, when I began to study the scriptures, it all made sense.
Do I claim that in order to be saved you need to speak in tongues? No.
Do I think I am more spiritual because I speak in tongues? No!
I am more spiritual when I am spending time in prayer and seeking God with all my heart!
Naomi

 

Alex,
I believe anyone who asks for the gift of tongues, will receive the gift.
Case in point: I have never prayed for someone to receive the gift of tongues, that did not receive it! I have prayed for alot of people since becoming a Christian. I say this, not to show how "spiritual" I am...as it comes from God, not from me! I make this statement, to say, not all speak in tongues, because not all want to.
I posted that link, because I think the author stated what is in my heart much more eloquently than I could! LOL!
Naomi