tongues

[gb93433]

Do I speak in tongues? No. Do I care to? No. I do understand the various postions and believe there is little reason for tongues. But I am cannot support the absolute cesasing by reason or scriupture. I know of too many cases where I believe God has used it. We cannot void the real by the phony. If I were to measure the spirituality in America and make a claim about God. By what I see in the majority if church people in America I would say He is dead.

If the average Chrsitian is to be like Jesus then how many in America are given trouble for their faith because of their God and the stance they take for Jesus.

Too many churches are controlled by the coingregation who most have never led one single person to Christ in their entire life.

On that conclusionalone I could question prayer and boldness in the churches alone. But I cannot quesstion the existence of God on the basis or the disobedient. I know God exists and no amount of reason or explanation would tell me otherwise.

I have to come to the point where I cannot say with absolute certainty that tongues has ceased. I just treat it as any other gift. I have found that when I treat all gift the same there is no one above another. There has never been a problem with tongues in any church I have pastored. They knew where I stood and never violated that. If they wanted to cause trouble they went elsewhere and that was the end of it.

 

[Elk]

The gift of tongues is a gift of God.
It is useful in various ways.
I believe the most useful is when the gift takes over when we are praying for someone...where we do not know how to pray, but God does.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
OK you can explain away 1 Corinthians 13:1.

Now explain away 1 Corinthians 14:2 (nKJV):
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak
to men but to God, for no one understands him;
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Does the tongue talker speak Greek or Hebrew to God?

1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

By the "tongues of men" Paul no doubt meant all the languages of mankind. A tongue is a synonym for language. This is made clear in Acts chapter 2, where the words are used interchangeably. It is clear here also where each foreign language had to be interpreted for those that did not know it. Paul was saying IF I could speak in every language of every nation of all mankind and still have not love, I am become as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. It is simply noise that doesn't make any sense to the listener; that is all it is--noise!

"If I could speak with the tongues of angels..." What are the tongues of angels? And how do angels speak? Angels spoke to Mary, to Joseph, to Lot, To Elizabeth, and to a multitude of others, especially in the Old Testament. They always spoke in the language of the person that they were speaking to. They probably never made any mistakes in grammar. Their speech was perfect speech. The tongues of angels would again be the gift to speak any language of the world, to speak it perfectly, eloquently, without mistake in grammar, or in any other way. That would be the languages of angels. Again Paul said IF. It was a rhetorical statement; a conjecture. He did not say that he ever did speak with the tongues of men or of angels. It was if he could so speak. It does not say that he ever gave all his money to the poor, or his body to be burned (which we know he did not). He says even if he could do these things and have not love it wouldn't profit him any thing. His sound would be meaningless. It would just be noise to the listener.

1 Corinthians 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.

Paul's main thrust throughout this 14th chapter is that of understanding. Tongues with no interpreter is useless, because there is no understanding. This verse is a rebuke, not an encouragement. He does not encourage one to speak or pray to God in tongues. Tongues is a public gift for the edification of the church, and in particular a sign to the unbelieving Jew of the first century--a sign of the authenticity of the gospel message. See 1Cor.14:21,22.
It is unlikely that they would ever speak in Greek or Hebrew. Greek was the universal language of the day, so there would be no need to speak in that language. Hebrew was the language of the Jews. The prophecy was that they would speak with other tongues. That is languages other than the language of the nation of Israel, which is Hebrew. That was the sign that was given to them.
If perchance there was somenone there that did not understand Greek, or was not a Jew, then God would miraculously give the person speaking the power to speak the language of that person so that he would be able to understand. God would also provide an interpreter. Both were gifts of God. Both could be exercised at any time that there was a need. Such is not the case today. Go through the conditions set forth by Paul in 1Cor.14, and virtually every one of them are broken by modern tongues-speakers.

Paul had good reason to say that he would rather speak in five words with understanding than in 10,000 words in tongues. Haven't you ever wondered why?
DHK

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

A stubborn will and a biased mind are two great obstacles to learning. Why do you even come here to post if you are unwilling to hear what another has to say, and be open enough to see if it is worth believing??

Is *this* the pot calling the kettle black?

Sorry, but those of us who are amenable to at least the potentiality of tongues have shared from our hearts what we believe.

So, far, as of the above quote, all I have seen is a harsh 'party line' from the cessionist camp.

*Very* little scripture. No absolute proof.

Because you have not tasted and seen that the Lord is good in an area does not mean that that area doesn't exist.

That is quite like the atheist who states emphatically the God is Dead because they personally haven't experienced or trusted in Him.

And, I will readily admit that there are abuses, on both sides.

But, abuse, does not make falsity.

And, in Paul's words,,

Phi 1:15
Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Phi 1:16
The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Phi 1:17
But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
Phi 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

In Short, If Jesus *is* Glorified and Lfted Up...

If lives are reclaimed, and turned from sin...

If vibrant witnesses are born...

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Anecdotal Testimony:

I was raised in the Assemblies of God. Confessed Christ around age five when the Southeastern Bible College Choir came to do a Christmas Concert.

Through out my young life I remained a bold and vital witness for Christ to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Then the teen years came... I retained the Knowledge of God but wasn't exactly a 'practicing Christian'.

Many trials, emotions, and family troubles came my way.

I met a girl, fell in love, and as a drop-out knew I had nothing to offer her. So, I joined the Navy at 17 and got some rather good technical training.

While in tech training at Millington TN. I was accosted by Debbie and Berseida (sp?) at the gate and invited to go to a Gospel Concert at the serviceman's center where Mike Pearl (Southside Independent Baptist Church) was hosting Shad Williams.

To make a long story short I rededicated my life to Christ at that concert and even though I was born and bred AoG, I attended Mike's Church. Even though an AoG church was right up the street.

Now, Mike was a character... He had the longest arms of any person I have even met. It was simply impossible to run a touchdown if *he* was on the opposing team.

But, we got even by throwing him in the lake. (What! A horrible way to treat a pastor.

He was single at the time...)

At any rate we had a bus driver by the name of Randy who was every bit like DHK concerning the Gifts of the Spirit.

In fact Randy would have probably split the church had Mike let him. He was that strident about it. And, we prayed, literally, that no Pentecostal would be at the gate while *we* were inviting guys to the concerts! Randy might have 'decked them'! (So much for Christian love.)

Mike shared once in church, defusing the whole situation, that *IF* God told you to speak in tongues in his church you had *better* speak in tongues.

But, just make absolutely sure it is God telling you to do so.

And, *IF* God doesn't specifically tell you to speak out... Then shut up!

I felt that was such good advice that I have kept it ever since. Even as a tongue-talker.

And, there have been times where I have 'brushed' off the Holy Spirit and basically 'requested' that He get someone else to speak or interpret.

I've felt Him 'lift' and hover off in the distance and then return and say, basically, nope, son, it's you, this time.

When you are not 'in vogue' in a congregation because you are not 'positive' enough or your 'confession' is not 'up to par'... Well, you can understand my hesitancy to operate in the gifts?

 

[southern phoenix]

Elk:
The gift of tongues is a gift of God.

indeed "glossa" is written as one of the spiritual gift.

but I assume that "glossa" mentioned in the Bible as a spiritual gift is always human-languages, and that`s different from the "modern glossa."

Elk:
I believe the most useful is when the gift takes over when we are praying for someone...where we do not know how to pray, but God does.

and God knows even before we pray, right ?

I mean, without "modern glossa," we still can pray to God and say that we just don`t know how to pray, but we need His help....."God, help" is surely something we can say, right

well, a good shepherd knows when his sheep is in trouble just by seeing its face though the sheep cannot speak the shepherd`s language

Ed:

Now explain away 1 Corinthians 14:2 (nKJV):
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak
to men but to God, for no one understands him;
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Ed, I read St. John Chrysostom`s Homilies on First Corinthians.
I think he had no problem to explain that though there was no "modern glossa" in his time

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/TOC.htm

Gby,

-ken-

 

[Briguy]

SMM and others who speak tongues. Believe me that I understand the delema you are in. You already speak in tongues so to look deeply at the text of scripture is hard for you because you do not want to think you have been doing something that is not real for 1, 10 or may 20+ years. I would probably feel the same way in your position. What are we to do with what the Bible teaches on the subject? By-pass the issue because well meaning people are actually speaking in tongues? You have to see that you are not making any Biblical arguments just emotional ones or stories of those who speak in tongues. Please ask tough questions so we can answer them for you. Believe the passages set before you and don't just fluff over them.

One point on "noisy gong". Tongues are always supposed to be used out loud and as a way to share a "message" with someone of another language. So, if a tongue was spoken out loud and no one spoke the language spoken or no one interpreted the language for those that didn't speak it the speaker would be a noisy gong or symbol to those who couldn't understsnd. The gift of tongues as all gifts HAS to edify the "body" (1 cor. 12:7) so that is why they were always used out loud. Look at the verse in the same area as the noisy gong about the trumpet sounding the battle cry. If the trumpet plays notes that are not understood the trumpet player is useless. If a tongue speaker speaks in tongues and himself or others do not understand he is useless (or what he did was useless), that is what scripture says.
Please again, challange us on scripture and not on our lack of emotionalism, thanks much.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Brian,

I have to agree that emotionalism is a dangerous thing.

Yes, I like getting excited about what Jesus did for me.

But, *if* I am going to be held accountable for what I say and do... I had better be in my 'right' mind when I do it. (As 'sane' as any Pentecostal )

I have the same angst with my peers who think that being Pentecostal means putting the brain in neutral and just doing it. Whatever 'it' is????

There have been *many* great men of God who were not Tongue-Talkers. They had a 'knack' for being exactly where God wanted them to be to say just the right Word at the right time.

I've seen some rather Red-faced and emotional Baptists as they boldly contended for the faith, too.

Trust me if there is one thing I have done, and will continue to do, and that is a continual checking to see if I be in the Faith or not.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

There *is* a difference of expectation, I believe, though, being of the Pentecostal persuasion.

If I am suddenly placed in a situation where I *must* communicate to a speaker of another language... I am at least open to the possibility that I can do so through the Gifts of the Spirit.

Same goes for Gifts of healing. If I am first on scene at a bad auto accident I am at least open to the possibility that Life Saving Healing might possibly be wrought by the Holy Spirit using me as a conduit.

When I was at Southside Baptist Church I was not, to my knowledge anyway, a Tongue-Talker. But, I was aware of the Gifts and Promises for those that Believe.

One of my 'pastimes' was to share Jesus with the 'flower children' on North Highland Street.

I met a new convert who had previously started a Health Food Restaurant (read that vegetarian) with a guru friend of his.

One of the little old ladies made quite a bit of concern about the possibility that 'something' could be put in my food.

To which I replied that God promised that if I drank any deadly thing it would hurt me. That I wouldn't knowingly eat or drink something 'contaminated'. But, if it was snuck in on me I trusted God to protect me because I was doing His work.

Jim, the Guru, attacked me on my being a 'meat eater' and we just about had a good knock-down drag-out over that.

Until the Holy Spirit 'constrained me' to go sit and read my Bible. I just happened to open to Romans 14 and then shared that with Jim. (I was given what to share in the self-same hour!)

The Holy Spirit convicted Jim and he stormed off and wouldn't talk any more. The next time I was there Jim was gone to find 'God' and the only text he took with him was the pocket Bible I had given him. God is Good.

This was *before* I was a tongue talker.

But, Mike pearl had taught us the God's Word remained true and unchangeable for He is the God that changes not.

I was 'open' to the possibility of God... And, God took advantage of it and ministered through me in spite of my being a novice and not very well versed in the Word, yet.

Unfortunately, I've always been too emotional for my own good.

And, *that* has been the biggest issue the Spirit has dealt with me on. Being too emotional and not thinking clearly.

Trust me... That *is* an issue *real* Pentecostals should be interested in addressing.

Any lemming can be herded off a cliff. (And, it looks like a leap of faith???) But, it takes thinking man to trim their spiritual sails and do useful work when the Wind of the Spirit Blows.

That, I am *still* learning.

 

[Briguy]

Hi SMM, I really appreciate your honesty. I need to tell you something about spiritual gifts that may throw you for a loop. (first, understand that I believe in the SG, except tongues, Int. of tongues, healings and miracles) Spiritual Gifts are given to use like a present. Think of getting a car as a present (like that would really happen

) Once you get the gift you decide when and where to drive it. It is the same for SG's Once we place our trust in Christ he gives us a gift or gifts and it/they are ours to use when and where we want. The gift is part of us and we decide when it is used not God. He may prompt us but the using of the gift is ours. Think of helps or administrations, can you imagine them only to be used when God powers them. Even preaching. I know of no preacher who hasn't preached because his gift didn't work on a Sunday. All gifts are the same, there is no Biblical difference in how they are used. The point is someone with a SG of tongues could speak any language he wanted at anytime he wnated. Pretty cool stuff but gone after 70AD. Think about this concept with SG's and let me know how it sits with you

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

The point is someone with a SG of tongues could speak any language he wanted at anytime he wanted.

Not sure my current level of Faith will take me there. At least not yet.

I am not sure if it would be any language of ones choosing. On the day of Pentecost it appears that each one spoke a single language. And that the aggregate 'effect' was that every visitor to Jerusalem heard Praise to God in their native tongue.

I am assuming this because the cloven tongues were on those that spake. Not on the hearers. And, it's kinda hard to speak more than one language at a time.

Though, I suppose, it could have been possible to do several sequentially. Hmm. Something to ponder.

Once you get the gift you decide when and where to drive it. It is the same for SG's Once we place our trust in Christ he gives us a gift or gifts and it/they are ours to use when and where we want. The gift is part of us and we decide when it is used not God. He may prompt us but the using of the gift is ours.

I agree... To a point.

But, this also results in abuses. Which we both decry.

And, even a Christmas 'gift' can be taken away by a parent if it is abused.

(Now, this brings to mind the child who continues to 'play' as if nothings happened and still has the 'toy'.)

There is a fine line between capricious use of a gift and operating it Decently and In Order.

I would rather *not* exercise a 'gift' than cause confusion or error in a church.

Of course you know I disagree about any of the Manifestations of the Spirits Presence being 'past'.

As for healings have you done any research on Kathryn Kulhman?

One of the hallmarks of her ministry was that she made a point of 'wanting' and obtaining documentation for the healings claimed in her meetings.

This was in my lifetime. Met her personally, sort'ave. Actually scared of her at the time. But, that's another story. Let me know if you're interested?

I also was 'underfoot' during Oral Roberts actual ministry days and saw some healings with my own eyes. FX wasn't what it is today so when you see a larger than a grapefruit goiter vanish in the blink of an eye leaving baby fresh skin and no sags behind...

I also was in services where several incontrovertible healings took place. So, that's an area where you'll have a hard time dissuading me.

And, in the last six months a close Friend of mine was diagnosed with lung cancer. The x-rays clearly showed the whole larger lung would have to be removed and possibly some of the smaller one.

As a church we didn't like that much. So, we prayed.

Then doctor expressed some confusion that the small lung now looked perfectly clear and he wasn't sure but it appeared the large one was improved.

They scheduled surgery anyway. The doctors didn't have a clue!

The end result was, was that a cancer that was supposed to kill him. didn't. The cancer that was supposed to be spreading was fully encapsulated in a very small area and completely removed.

Why not a 'complete' healing? Well this guy is a bit stubborn.

Been running from God for a while.

Also, the cancer was work generated and is now documented. Meaning he may actually get 'blessed' by it.

Now... If I could just get my own self image up to where I would or could appropriate such Grace for myself. I *really* need new teeth.

Trust me it's **very** frustrating to pray for others and see the miraculous. And, then not get anything for yourself!

For now I'll have to rejoice with those that rejoice...

 

[MEE]

SpiritualMadMan, just wanted to say that I love reading your posts.

Just another Pentecostal,
MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
I felt that was such good advice that I have kept it ever since. Even as a tongue-talker.

I've felt Him 'lift' and hover off in the distance and then return and say, basically, nope, son, it's you, this time.

If you read my responses carefully you will note that they are mostly, if not all, based on the Scriptures. The same remains true for Brian and Walguy. The Word of God remains my sole authority for faith and practice. It is the ground and reason for my faith. I do not have blind faith in an undefined Jesus.

Unfortunately many do. They put their faith in a Jesus that they do not know. They base their lives on emotion and experience. The Bible never teaches that. It teaches that we ought to occupy our minds, to think, meditate, study, take heed, etc.
See your own statements: "I felt," "I felt." If I did what I felt like every day, I wouldn't get up in the morning and go to work. I would get others to do my work for me. If I did what I liked I would show no restraint when it comes to eating. I would become a glutton. I don't run my life by my feelings; I run my life responsibly, by what my mind tells me to do. The Bible teaches that.

Consider these Scriptures:
In Acts 4:24-30 is recorded a prayer of the disciples in response to the threatenings of the Pharisees because of the open preaching of Peter and John. Here is the answer to that prayer in verse 31:
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

The result of their praying was that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. The filling of the Holy Spirit came from prayer. It did not come from baptism, nor did it come from speaking in tongues, nor was there recorded any fuzzy emotional feelings with it. They were filled with the Holy Spirit, and that for a reason.

The reason, and the result was--they spoke the Word of God with boldness. If you don't speak the Word of God with boldness anymore, don't blame the fuzzy little feeling that is gone away that you wrongly called the Holy Spirit. Don't wrongly attribute your emotions to the Holy Spirit. Your failure is in yourself to speak out boldly for the Lord Jesus Christ wherever you are. You get that boldness from spending time in prayer--not from tongues, and not from fuzzy little feelings.

Base you life from the sound teaching of God's Word, not on your emotions or feelings.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

SMM, Thanks again for the kindness in your posts. I have discussed tongues and SG's with others who want to make it a "war" or something but you seem to be genuine in your love for Jesus and others. The type of healings you mention I believe in as well. God has always healed in answer to prayer. Not in many cases but in some he does. However, the "gift of healing" was different. When Jesus healed, when Peter or Paul healed they could heal anyone and everyone. The main difference was that when Peter healed it was an act of Peter. When we pray today for healing it is an act of God if the person is healed. God gave some in the early church, not many as we do not see a lot of people healing, a special gift to heal. They decided who and when to heal. They used the gift as we may use a gift of "goverments" today. I hope I made that clear but if I just confused you further let me know and I will try again. If anyone had the true "gift of healing" today they could march into a hospital and clear the place out. Think about Peter, he healed all that were brought to him, which is nothing like what we see in churches today. SG's are SG's and we can't pick and choose how they are used, they are all given by the same God and all used in the same way. He has through His wisdom chose not to continue the "sign" gifts. Thanks for reading this rambling post.

In Christian Love,
Brian

Hi Carol

Merry Christmas

Don't forget to think of me when your sipping egg nog and watching Charlie Brown

 

[Ed Edwards]

Southern Phoenix: //but I assume that "glossa" mentioned
in the Bible as a spiritual gift is always human-languages,
and that`s different from the "modern glossa."//

I always assumed the opposite:
"glossa" mentioned in the Bible is the same as "modern glossa".

If you assume your assumption, then must of the use of "glossa"
in the Bible is contradicted.
How can it be the language of the angels, if it is of men's language?
How can it be talking to God alone, if it is of men's langauage?
Why is an interperter needed, if it is of men's langauge?
Why should only two or three speek glossa in one meeting --
what if there are people of six different languages
in the meeting?
I'm sure i could think of more, but i've got to be off to work.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Word of God - Point to Ponder:

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Things to note:

Speaking in tongues was not necessary because they had already believe on Jesus and they were communicating adequately with known human languages.

This was some time after the initial outpouring at Pentecost and the fledgling church was getting pretty well established.

Also, note how important it was to Paul and Apollos. It was the number one issue undertaken *after* it was established that 'the disciples' were 'believers'.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Another Word of God Point to Ponder:

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Had to go to the ASV to get the rest of these references:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Act 1:5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

OK? By two or three witnesses?

In Pentecostal circles there is a saying about wading out a little deeper.

I think that is why 'Baptism in the Holy Ghost' is a fitting statement.

Because, in a very real sense a person has to get into God over his head to be filled with the Spirit. Or, Baptized as *even* Our Lord and Savior called it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Another Word of God Point to Ponder: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Had to go to the ASV to get the rest of these references:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Act 1:5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

OK? By two or three witnesses?

In Pentecostal circles there is a saying about wading out a little deeper.

I think that is why 'Baptism in the Holy Ghost' is a fitting statement.

Because, in a very real sense a person has to get into God over his head to be filled with the Spirit. Or, Baptized as *even* Our Lord and Savior called it. </font>[/QUOTE]And so what do these Scriptures prove? Most of them simply indicate that the believers would simply be indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the Day of Pentecost onward. So what?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Word of God - Point to Ponder: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Things to note:

Speaking in tongues was not necessary because they had already believe on Jesus and they were communicating adequately with known human languages.

This was some time after the initial outpouring at Pentecost and the fledgling church was getting pretty well established.

Also, note how important it was to Paul and Apollos. It was the number one issue undertaken *after* it was established that 'the disciples' were 'believers'. </font>[/QUOTE]The Book of Acts, a book of history, is absolutely necessary to the theology of Pentecostal, Charismatic, and other related groups. I challenged MEE on this, and he couldn't do it. "Without the book of Acts show me the clear plan of salvation through a doctrinal book such as the book of Romans. He could not do it. Cults that demand that either one be baptized or speak in tongues for their salvation must depend solely on the Book of Acts for their theology. However, doctrine is taught in the epistles, and history is given in the book of Acts. The Acts are just that--Acts. They are the Acts of the Apostles, a history of them. It is unwise to develop your theology from that Book. And this is what you have done in this case also.

Remeber that at this time the church was historically going through a time of transition. Peter came across these Old Testament believers who knew only the baptism of John. They hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit before. They had repented unto John's repentance, unto John's baptism. After showing them the true way of salvation they believed, and were thus baptized in a Biblical way. The tongues came upon them because:
1. There were unbelieving Jews present to whom tongues were a sign (1Cor.14:21,22).
2. The people needed to know that this gospel message of salvation was for the gentile believers also.
3. Note that nowhere does it intimate that the speaking of tongues was necessary. Had not the Jews been present they would not have spoken in tongues at all. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew of the first century.
4. In Acts 4:29-31, when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, there was no tongue-speaking involved whatsoever. Why? There were no Jews present. There were just Godly believers who were afterward ready to go and boldly preach the Word of God.
The gift of tongues has ceased. It is no longer for today. What goes on in the name of tongues today is completely fraudulent.
DHK

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

And so what do these Scriptures prove?

The result of their praying was that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. The filling of the Holy Spirit came from prayer. It did not come from baptism, nor did it come from speaking in tongues, nor was there recorded any fuzzy emotional feelings with it. They were filled with the Holy Spirit, and that for a reason.

It proves purely by scripture that there is, or at least was, a Baptism in the Holy Ghost.

Classical Penetcostals teach that Jesus is the Baptizer. And, that we are Baptized into the Holy Spirit. Just as my scriptural references intimate.

We may disagree with the point of whether or not tongues is for today.

But, I believe the Classical Pentecostals use of the term 'Baptism' in regards to the Filling of the Holy Spirit, is highly proper and accurate.

And, note that both you and I are using the term 'Filling' which has decidedly different conotation than having the Spirit as a Walk Along-Side Guide or paraclette.

Here are a few more passages to ponder. I know there are two interpretations possible. But, for a moment try mine.

Mat 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
Mat 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

And, also in

Luk 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
Luk 11:25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
Luk 11:26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

That which is 'cleansed' could be a new believer.

If a New Believer is in-dwealt by the Spirit at Salvation, how, then, can a cleansed house be empty.

And, for those that came out of witchcraft I wonder if the only way to prevent re-infestation is to be in-dwealt or filled with the spirit of God.

Just a thought?

 

[DHK]

The Bible says: "Greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." I believe that it is impossible for a saved person to be demon possessed. If Christ lives within that person by the power of the Holy Spirit, then how can another evil spirit reside there at the same time. In the Scriptures that you presented, in both cases the person had an unclean spirit to begin with. They therefore could not have been believers. They swept their house clean--meaning that they may have gotten rid of that unclean spirit somehow. Perhaps they did some reformation in their lives. But instead of regeneration, reformation fell inadequately short of God's demand. And therefore they left their clean and open house for even more evil spirits to enter in. Only the power of the blood of Christ can keep the evil spirits out. That is why everything from the curses of voo-dooism, hypnotism, and the various form of the occult and witchcraft will not have an effect on the Christian who maintains a close walk with the Lord. The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, and it gives us protection. Greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.
DHK