Discussion Ex-Charismatics, thoughts on what this means and on their ideas.

[robert skynner]

I am not really sure what difference that makes.

The point is the day it happened - Shavuot/Pentecost - the anniversary of God coming down on Mt Sinai with fire and smoke and speaking out the 10 commandments in 70 languages (for the mixed multitude gathered at foot of the mountain).

So the devout worshippers came out of the temple after the morning sacrifices and prayers with that image of God coming down on the mountain fresh in their minds and then Acts 2 happens. And since the streets are so narrow in the Old City, the only place spacious enough for the 3000 to hear and get baptized was at the Temple Mount.


I am also not sure what the events of Acts 2 have to do with being an EX charismatic/pentecostal.

if you can prove that only 12 men, not 120 men and women spoke in other languages on the day of Pentecost, then, you totally refute the claim by the more extreme Pentecostals that everybody ought to speak in tongues today, just because they'll claim that every convert to Christ on the day of Pentecost (all 3,000) of them also spoke in tongues together with the 120! Yet Acts 2:43 limits the languages on that day to the APOSTLES, who numbered 12 not 120 or 3,120.

 

[Dave-W]

if you can prove that only 12 men, not 120 men and women spoke in other languages on the day of Pentecost, then, you totally refute the claim by the more extreme Pentecostals that everybody ought to speak in tongues today

OK - I see where you are going with this.

But a single passage of scripture cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of scriptures. Paul says in 1 Cor that he wished everyone would speak in tongues - and even more so that they would prophesy.

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

No you cannot prove a limit or a lack of limit from Acts 2. It is not addressed.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Who made you a judge over me? You don't know me and you ought to answer my question on Mark 16:17 rather than act as my eternal judge, that's Christ's job, not you Oscarr. Oh and by the way, nobody is "saved" by attaching some label or identification to themselves, sadly the people who seem to most zealously deny the new covenant are people claiming to be born again Christians. I will; repeat my post on Mark 16:17 please reply.

..........................

Oscarr, the word ‘believe’ or ‘have believed’ (NASV) at Mark 16:17is an aorist participle, which can only refer to the office of the 12 apostles, who numbered eleven at that particular moment! A contrast in these verses is also made between two groups of believers, firstly the singular ‘he’ at Mark 16:16 who will come to believe, with the plural ‘them’ of verses 14, 16 and 20. In verse 17 John quoting Christ does not use two future tenses, to imply that these miraculous gifts will continue for the entire church age even into our own day. If he had wished to imply this, then he would have said: ‘these signs will follow those who WILL believe.’ But instead, the linking of the aorist participle ‘have believed’ with the future tense; ‘will follow,’ implies that those who’ll work these miracles, will receive their faith before they come exercise these miraculous gifts. This limits the recipients to the apostles but not to the 3,000 who came to faith after the exercise of the mighty spiritual gifts at Acts 2:41.


This interpretation is confirmed in Acts chapter two, where we read that only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues. The 3,000 men who were converted on this day (Acts 2:41), did not work any miracles. Because Acts 2:43 says that these signs were done by the apostles. Now obviously later on in the book of Acts, other people also worked miracles, through the laying on of the apostles hands, and sometimes God will occasionally even heal or even work a miracle today. Elsewhere in Acts chapters 10, 19 and possible 8, other people also spoke in “other languages.” But this was hardly a common event, as Acts 19 is some twenty years after Pentecost, and 2 or 3 occurrences of tongues over a 20 year period, hardly describes a common Christian activity. Now if Jesus had wished to indicate to us today, that the 3,000 who were saved on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) would also come to speak in tongues, then he would have used two future tenses in his prophecy at Mark 16:17:‘these signs WILL follow those who WILL believe.’


Because nobody today, not even Oscarr can meet the apostolic requirements of having seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:22). This is why Paul saw the risen Christ “last of all,” (1st Corinthians 15:8), and the office of the 12 ceased with him. With this apostles office closed, God is not today confirming the oral word with the sign gifts of Mark 16:17-18. But if he were we would not have an AID’s crisis, for the Apostles could heal all who came to them (Acts 5:16). This inability to duplicate the book of Acts in our day, and especially the miraculous sign gifts of Mark 16:17-18, proves that today’s apostles are rather undermining the finished authority of Scripture.

I'm not judging you. I just telling you that it would be better for you to turn away from your rejection of Christianity (as you yourself stated). You have judged yourself as a rejecter of Christianity. I am merely repeating what the New Testament says to people who are rejecting Christ.

Actually you could get yourself into strife on this particular forum because it is for Spirit-filled and Charismatic Christians. Because you have identified yourself as a rejecter of Christianity, someone might report you and question why you should be posting on this forum. As for me, I would rather have you here and to encourage you to embrace Christ, even though you want to reject what you see in the Christian Church. You need to know that Christ is not the Church, and the Church is not Christ. A person who loves Christ and is living for Him does not have to accept the shonky stuff that often is seen in churches that are meant to represent Him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr, many if not most Evangelical Christians deny the new covenant, for instance here in Plymouth in the UK, people claiming to be saved, will also claim that they are under the Mosaic laws of tithing, thus when I've inquire if they are new covenant Christians, they will reply yes, but then claim that new covenant Christians are also under parts of the Mosaic law pertinent to tithing and also to pasts of the Abrahamic covenant (when they raise Genesis 14). When I have then pointed out that Christ's work on the cross is not sufficient for them, they damn me to hell as unsaved, (just as you also have done)! The trouble is that the vast overwhelming majority of evangelical people calling themselves "saved" or "born again" or "Christian" in my locality in the UK, do not understand even the basics of Christian theology, are effectively anti-Trinitarian (usually modalist or tritheist), even if they do attend baptist or Pentecostal type Churches, neither do these people understand the new covenant as they often add human works to grace and regard the gospel as mostly what Christ mostly does with a terribly shallow grasp of the new covenant, but with their own good works also added to Christ's works and the two together produce salvation. It's sad, but you've fallen from grace if you do not accept that Christ's work on the cross, making a covenant with the father mediated through the Holy Spirit is the new covenant which purchases salvation in the new covenant completely apart from human good works: Galatians 5:4 "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." It's shame that you won't discuss this, you just damn me to hell, but hey I'm used to that, that is how most RELIGIOUS people act. They use an undefined label such as "saved" and then unbiblically damn people such as myself who don't use their label too. Hardly Biblical is it! Personally, I've found it almost impossible to find a born again Evangelical Christian who is able to even explain their faith accurately and biblically, they just damn people outside of their little group to hell as Oscarr has done me.

For goodness sake man, I haven't damned you to hell. Where on earth did you get that idea? I understand your opposition to the Church and the hypocrisy that you see in it. But don't throw Christ away because the Church is not where it should be. He had to get me away from the church environment to reveal Himself to me in the middle of a golf course near my parents' home. He presented Himself to me as someone separate from the church that you see. You will see by my posts here that I am not hesitant in having a good go at the shortcoming and failures of the church. But it is most important to secure personal faith in Christ as a separate person who loves you and wants to save you. He said that he did not come to judge you or condemn you to hell, but to save you and give you a wonderful life with Him. Once you have got that sorted out, then you can find a church that truly represents Christ. I agree that it might be a very difficult mission to find such a church. If there is a perfect church, if would be no longer perfect if I joined it because I am not perfect. But because of my personal faith in Christ, I am forgiven, and that is why I can be confident and have faith in Christ.

So get things sorted between you and Christ on the personal level and forget for the moment about the problems you see in the church. And I am NOT condemning you to hell. I don't have the right to do that. Actually, no one is being condemned to hell right now, because the day of judgment has not come. Today is the day of God's grace and mercy, and He extends it to you personally. Will you reject Christ because of the hypocrisy of His people? Jesus does everything totally right; we just have to forgive His people sometimes. That is my message to you. Once you have that sorted, then we can discuss Christian matters because then you will be in the right place to discuss them fairly without allowing your unforgiveness and rejection get in the way.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

As a Christian, you ought to know your own holy book Golden KingGaze. Well, Strong's concordance does not give tenses, you need a more substantial tool to reveal that.

The word for "Believe" is: πιστεύω pisteuō
The Tense is : Aorist (which implies completed action)
Voice: Active (this means that the subject is doing the action of the verb)
Mood: Participle (A participle is a verb being used as a noun)

NASB Mark 16:17:

“These signs will accompany those who have believed; in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;"

The aorist participle πιστεύω is translated as "have believed" my sole point is that being a completed action (i.e. past tense) it's referring back to the 11 apostles who are doing this believing from verse 14, and not to believers in the future in the year AD 2017. If this text is supposed to be referring to believers in the future, i.e. today, then Mark 16:17 would have have been written in a future tense and not as an aorist participle. Look Christians, won't anyone of you reply intelligently to my polite and fair criticisms of your faith, don't use a straw man and misquote me, be fair, be honest and reply to my fair question. I tire of the dishonest of so many relgious people.

More than 12 had believed. More importantly, in context, Jesus was speaking about future believers in the message of the 12. Jesus was not speaking of what is now a past "dispensation," but of the one Holy Spirit and one practice which later is described in 1Corinthians 12 to 14.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Post like I did, the whole Mark 17 quote and you can see that Jesus speaks of present day Christians who have believed and some of us speak new tongues, heal and cast out unclean spirits. Without these, we don't have justice and peace. Christians are powerless and weak, barely saved. But instead we have good news.

 

[robert skynner]

More than 12 had believed. More importantly, in context, Jesus was speaking about future believers in the message of the 12. Jesus was not speaking of what is now a past "dispensation," but of the one Holy Spirit and one practice which later is described in 1Corinthians 12 to 14.

I am not a dispensationalist, so I do not believe in different dispensations. Also I am not a born again Christian, I now reject that deception. My comments are pertinent only to Mark 16, where Christ was addressing his 11 apostles, the aorist participle (completed action i.e. a past tense), proves that he was specifically addressing them "these signs shall follow those WHO HAVE believed" (Mark 16:17 NASB). If Christ had wished to address people today in 2017 in connection with these miracles, then he would have used a future tense, not a past tense. Secondly, those who worked miracles on the day of Pentecost, were limited only to the 12 apostles, notice Acts 2:43: "And many wonders and signs were done by the apostles (or does it say the 3,120)." This is confirmed at Acts 2:13-15 where Peter stands up with the 11 not with the 119. Now I certainly agree that 15 to 20 years later in Acts 19 and at 1st Corinthians others also spoke in languages, I do not dispute that, but it is irrelevant to my case that the promise of Mark 16, fulfilled in Acts chapter 2 and in both cases is limited to the 11 and then to the 12. Again, I agree that in Acts 10 some 8-10 or so years later and in Acts 19 other also spoke in languages - I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT.

 

[robert skynner]

Post like I did, the whole Mark 17 quote and you can see that Jesus speaks of present day Christians who have believed and some of us speak new tongues, heal and cast out unclean spirits. Without these, we don't have justice and peace. Christians are powerless and weak, barely saved. But instead we have good news.

Then why does Mark use an aorist participle (past tense)?

 

[robert skynner]

For goodness sake man, I haven't damned you to hell. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I see, so to clarify you are a universalist who believes that unsaved people such as me will go to heaven, as you reject the concept of eternal conscious torment in hell. You stated clearly that I am unsaved, thus as an unsaved person, you believe that I will not go to hell, as no unsaved person goes to hell, you reject the concept .... right?

 

[robert skynner]

OK - I see where you are going with this.

But a single passage of scripture cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of scriptures. Paul says in 1 Cor that he wished everyone would speak in tongues - and even more so that they would prophesy.

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

No you cannot prove a limit or a lack of limit from Acts 2. It is not addressed.

Look if I argue that The Beatles LP Sgt pepper was recorded on a four track analogue recorder in 1967, your pointing out that today artists use 128 track digital recording PCs is completely irrelevant, the context of my comment in 1967 and specifically Sgt Pepper. So likewise, I accept that many years after mark 16 and Acts 2, others also spoke in languages in Acts 10, 19 and 1st Corinthains, this was up to 20 years later and is completely irrelevant to my pointing out that Jesus uses an aorist participle (past tense) to speak to his 11 apostles in Mark 16:17. At Acts 2:13-15 Peter stands up with the 11 not with the 119 and at Acts 2:43 the miracle of languages is limited to the 12 apostles, not to 3,120.

 

[robert skynner]

No you cannot prove a limit or a lack of limit from Acts 2. It is not addressed.

I am not trying to prove a limit from Acts 2, as others (many years later) in Acts 10,19 and 1st Corinthians 14 also spoke in languages, so proving a limit is NOT my position. However, why doesn't Acts 2:43 state: "and many wonders and signs were done by the 3,120?" Also why doesn't Acts 2:14 state: "And Peter standing up with the 119." Please do address these two issues which I have.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Then why does Mark use an aorist participle (past tense)?

Those of Jesus' baptized who "have believed" those of today, speaking from then about the future, which is now and to come, along with the words "I am with you to the end of the age" Jesus other last words, these will speak in new tongues. I do. I am in relation to Mark 17, in the future, and I "have come" to believe since then I came to speak in new tongues. The new tongues of Mark and Paul are the same kind of gifting.

Jesus had 11 faithful apostles and then Matthew so 12, He sent out the 72, so even before the end of the Gospel of Mark promise, They could heal the sick and cast out unclean spirits. So these signs "Will" not follow the older disciples but are about the future converts even in China and New Zealand.

 

[Dave-W]

Look if I argue that The Beatles LP Sgt pepper was recorded on a four track analogue recorder in 1967, your pointing out that today artists use 128 track digital recording PCs is completely irrelevant, the context of my comment in 1967 and specifically Sgt Pepper. So likewise, I accept that many years after mark 16 and Acts 2, others also spoke in languages in Acts 10, 19 and 1st Corinthains, this was up to 20 years later and is completely irrelevant to my pointing out that Jesus uses an aorist participle (past tense) to speak to his 11 apostles in Mark 16:17. At Acts 2:13-15 Peter stands up with the 11 not with the 119 and at Acts 2:43 the miracle of languages is limited to the 12 apostles, not to 3,120.

I think I would leave out Mark 16 from any serious consideration, (and most especially in analyzing word forms) since everything after verse 8 was added at some point; probably prior to the rise of Montanism. (200s ad)

I am sure it accurately reflects the doctrine and practice of the church in the late first and early second centuries. But it is not original.

 

[Dave-W]

However, why doesn't Acts 2:43 state: "and many wonders and signs were done by the 3,120?" Also why doesn't Acts 2:14 state: "And Peter standing up with the 119." Please do address these two issues which I have.

It takes time to properly understand and use the spiritual gifts. The 11 had been effectively doing that for about 3 years and had been trained in the use by the Lord Himself. It would have taken several more years for the 3000 to learn how to do signs and wonders.

As to there being 120 people in the Upper Room that morning, it is easily debunked tradition. In the residential sections of the city there was not room for more than about 20 people in a room at a time. And absolutely no room for thousands in the streets to hear Peter. Nor any place to do baptisms.

However, the Temple mount had room and facilities for all of that.

The fact that it does not specify HOW MANY people were speaking in tongues in Acts 2 reflects the point that it does not matter.

 

[robert skynner]

I think I would leave out Mark 16 from any serious consideration, (and most especially in analyzing word forms) since everything after verse 8 was added at some point; probably prior to the rise of Montanism. (200s ad)

I am sure it accurately reflects the doctrine and practice of the church in the late first and early second centuries. But it is not original.

Mark 16:17 was quoted to me, in an attempt to prove that the miracles and signs and wonders were quoted by Christ and applied to all Christians, both then and also now. I never raised this verse, somebody on this forum raised it in order to try to refute me! Nobody is addressing three points:

1. Mark 16:17 is an aorist participle (i.e. a past tense - have believed), Christ is speaking to the 11 apostles, using a past tense in reference to their belief, Christ is not addressing future believers today and applying these miraculous gifts to them, if he wanted to do this then he would have used a future tense.

2. Mark 16:17 is fulfilled in Acts 2, where at verse 14 Peter and the 11 (not Peter and the 119), are named as having spoken in miraculous languages. Likewise the miracles (called wonders and signs) are limited (on this day) just to the 12 apostles according to verse 43, peter does not say that 120 or the 3,000 also perform signs and wonders.

3. Please do not misquote me, I am not attempting to prove that only 12 men ever spoke in languages, that is not my position, I agree that 8 years later in Acts 10 and 15-20 years later in Acts 19 and 1st Corinthians 14 other also spoke. My point is to prove the claim that ALL MUST SPEAK IN TONGUES TODAY, because ALL SPOKE IN TONGUES ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, is wrong, because as i have proven only 12 not 3,120 spoke in languages on the day of Pentecost. In the light of this claim, languages happening years later isn't relevant, as my position is NOT that only 12 men ever spoke in languages.

 

[robert skynner]

The fact that it does not specify HOW MANY people were speaking in tongues in Acts 2 reflects the point that it does not matter.

You are mistaken sir, it clearly says that peter plus the 11 (making 12) spoke in languages at Acts 2:14 (NIV): "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say."

Also consider Acts 2:43: " Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles." This limits the miracles on that day (I am not saying for all time) only to the 12 apostles. The number 12 is specifically implied twice in Acts chapter two as the number of miracle workers. In my opinion if you can prove this, then you prove that the claim that all Christians (and converts) spoke in languages on the day of Pentecost, therefore all Christians should also speak in languages today, is proven to be nonsense, as not every single christian did speak in languages or do any miracle sign on that day, Acts 2:43 limits miracle working on that day to the 12 apostles.

(note I am NOT trying to claim that only 12 men ever spoke in languages or worked a miracle, that is NOT my position. However, I know that as a skeptic I will be deliberately misquoted by the Christians here in this forum, who will try to argue that I am promoting a straw man position which I have stated clearly I am definitely NOT making).

 

[Dave-W]

You are mistaken sir, it clearly says that peter plus the 11 (making 12) spoke in languages at Acts 2:14,

You are misreading the text. By verse 14 the "tongues" part of it was over. Peter was speaking to the crowd in either Aramaic or Hebrew, (probably Aramaic) which as Jews, they would have understood quite well, regardless of their home countries.

 

[robert skynner]

Those of Jesus' baptized who "have believed" those of today, speaking from then about the future, which is now and to come, along with the words "I am with you to the end of the age" Jesus other last words, these will speak in new tongues. I do. I am in relation to Mark 17, in the future, and I "have come" to believe since then I came to speak in new tongues. The new tongues of Mark and Paul are the same kind of gifting.

How can an aorist participle "have believed" refer to people living today in AD 2017? Jesus was speaking to his 11 apostles and his words and the accompanying miracles and signs are specific to them and not to people living today, as the aorist participle is a PAST TENSE, you can't apply this past tense to the future.

 

[Dave-W]

My point is to prove the claim that ALL MUST SPEAK IN TONGUES TODAY, because ALL SPOKE IN TONGUES ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, is wrong,

On that I agree.
Indeed, Paul agreed with that point as well.

1 Corinthians 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Rhetorical question with the obvious answer: NO.

 

[robert skynner]

For goodness sake man, I haven't damned you to hell. Where on earth did you get that idea?

OK so am I going to heaven then?