Evangelicals Plus Tongues

Spirit of Pentecost said:

I don't see it as sad, but factual instead. In every Biblical instance when believers were filled with the Holy Ghost, they spoke with other tongues.

Click to expand...

It's sad if you are saying that someone isn't saved and/or doesn't have the Spirit unless they speak in tongues - because you're wrong. It may be the case that everyone that we read about in the early church spoke in tongues after they received the Spirit, but they may have been a number who didn't, yet this isn't recorded.
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit and John the Baptist was filled from birth, Luke 1:15; yet neither spoke in tongues. Many people today have received the Holy Spirit and yet don't speak in tongues - I am one of them.

Spirit of Pentecost said:

Our experience of "being filled" or "having the Spirit" is no different.

Click to expand...

Mine is.
I've read of many people who have received the Holy Spirit; they may feel happy, feel God's love, or have some other feeling. They will change, and may give up bad habits, start doing good, or serving God in a new way. They will certainly be drawn closer to Jesus - that is what the Spirit does - and have a new desire for God's word.
They may speak in tongues several months later; or not at all.

Spirit of Pentecost said:

The reason those in the Old Testament, such as John the Baptist, did not speak in other tongues was because the Spirit had not yet been sent back as our comforter. Jesus didn't send back His own Spirit to comfort His followers until the Day of Pentecost, after-which all of those that were filled with the Holy Ghost began to speak in other tongues.

Click to expand...

But the Spirit was still with them and in their lives.
In either this thread, or another one, it has been said that tongues is evidence that a person has received the Holy Spirit. In the OT, King Saul received the Holy Spirit and prophesied, 1 Samuel 10:10 - it doesn't say he spoke in tongues. David prayed that the Holy Spirit would not be taken from him - again, tongues not mentioned. The Lord told Ezekiel that he would put his Spirit in people, and prophesied through Joel that the Spirit would be poured out on all people, Joel 2:28-29 - fulfilled at Pentecost. Prophecy mentioned, not tongues.

Tongues is one outward sign that people have received the Spirit. There are others, and sometimes a person doesn't speak in tongues at all.

Spirit of Pentecost said:

These people might have certainly had an encounter with the Spirit, but I couldn't say they were filled with It because the evidence of tongues was not there to verity the infilling.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter whether you could say it or not; they were.

Jesus said that the Spirit would convict people of sin, John 16:8, testify to Jesus, John 16:14-15 and draw people to him, be with them and IN them, John 14:18-20 be their comforter, John 14:16, guide and the very reason they are born again, John 3:3. I know what Mark 16:9-20 says, but when Jesus taught the disciples about the Holy Spirit, his work and that they would receive him, he didn't once mention tongues as evidence of this.
Paul said that the Spirit assures us that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17, and that no one can declare that Jesus is Lord unless they have the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:3. He also speaks of the various gifts that the Spirit gives. Speaking in tongues is one of those, but not the only one or even the most important.

I could be enabled to speak in tongues tomorrow, or even today. If that happened, it would be good, but would not make me any the more acceptable to God, or show that I was filled with the Spirit for the very first time.
I have no doubt that some on here would think so, however, and may even start to treat me differently. But it's how God sees me that's important, and he knows that he has filled me with his Spirit. I know it too.

By the way, the Spirit is HIM, not IT.

Richard T said:

Yes,m you are right there are differences in faith in all groups, though I am sure that God will straighten this out at some point.

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? NAR is a movement of mostly charismatic churches that ascribe to a vision whereby apostles and prophets are more active and empowered. From them, the vision is to take dominion over the earth which will in turn then usher in the return of Jesus. There is way more to it, but you can find it all over the internet. Lots of influence in Christian music with some big churches and leaders worldwide. Lots of critics to their teachings as well.

Click to expand...

I am not sure of all the differences, however, as an "ex-Pentecostal" (I was Pentecostal for 42 years) the problems that I see in all three (Charismatic, Pentecostal, NAR) is that there is no doctrine. Acts 2:42 speaks of continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.

The greatest problem is that there are no set doctrinal beliefs in any of these movements, hence you can go to 10 different Pentecostal/Charismatic/NAR churches and you will have different teachings in all 10. The only things that they will all agree on is prosperity, signs, wonders and miracles, tongues and prophecy etc. oh, and being slain in the spirit. These movements appeal to the emotions of the people, as they focus on "who we are in Christ" rather than Who Christ is in us! Oh, that we would desire all over again to KNOW Christ...

Phi. 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death,


However, when it comes to the Scriptures they (the above 3) will probably all differ as they operate to a large extent on personal revelation of the Scriptures. So at the end of the day, people are not sure what they believe, why they believe what they do believe and don't have very much of an idea of what the Scriptures mean, besides the fact that they quote them in "faith". People are not encouraged to take their Bibles to church, as they have the Scriptures up on the screen, which gives opportunity for deception. People need to know the importance of having their Bibles with them in church and to invest in good study Bibles, to assist them in understanding the Scriptures.

I hope I have not spoken out of place here.

Glorygirl16 said:

I am not sure of all the differences, however, as an "ex-Pentecostal" (I was Pentecostal for 42 years) the problems that I see in all three (Charismatic, Pentecostal, NAR) is that there is no doctrine. Acts 2:42 speaks of continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.

The greatest problem is that there are no set doctrinal beliefs in any of these movements, hence you can go to 10 different Pentecostal/Charismatic/NAR churches and you will have different teachings in all 10. The only things that they will all agree on is prosperity, signs, wonders and miracles, tongues and prophecy etc. oh, and being slain in the spirit. These movements appeal to the emotions of the people, as they focus on "who we are in Christ" rather than Who Christ is in us! Oh, that we would desire all over again to KNOW Christ...

Phi. 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death,


However, when it comes to the Scriptures they (the above 3) will probably all differ as they operate to a large extent on personal revelation of the Scriptures. So at the end of the day, people are not sure what they believe, why they believe what they do believe and don't have very much of an idea of what the Scriptures mean, besides the fact that they quote them in "faith". People are not encouraged to take their Bibles to church, as they have the Scriptures up on the screen, which gives opportunity for deception. People need to know the importance of having their Bibles with them in church and to invest in good study Bibles, to assist them in understanding the Scriptures.

I hope I have not spoken out of place here.

Click to expand...

Not at all..its well in place
Some good points
Except the last part about having bibles in church...
That in itself is notradiction biblical not in keeping the with the apostles doctrine.

Church for example is not a place one goes.
Its not a building
Its not run by men its not headed by man .

Alithis said:

Not at all..its well in place
Some good points
Except the last part about having bibles in church...
That in itself is notradiction biblical not in keeping the with the apostles doctrine.

Church for example is not a place one goes.
Its not a building
Its not run by men its not headed by man .

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, we are the church. Thanks for that. However, there are many that just swallow all that they hear, without checking up that it is actually in the Bible and that is rather scary. We need to get back to our Bibles as we listen to preaching, be it in the church or on the Christian TV channels. There are a lot of strange people out there

Glorygirl16 said:

Oh, that we would desire all over again to KNOW Christ...

Phi. 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death,

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Glorygirl16 said:

People are not encouraged to take their Bibles to church, as they have the Scriptures up on the screen, which gives opportunity for deception.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Don't know about Pentecostal/NAR churches, but a number of other churches display Scripture readings on an overhead screen. Generally, I think, this is Bible software, rather than someone typing out the relevant passage each week. There is the possibility of a spelling mistake, but I doubt very much that anyone would seek to actively deceive the congregation by changing the Scriptures.

Glorygirl16 said:

People need to know the importance of having their Bibles with them in church

Click to expand...

Why, though?
Most churches have Bibles, whether or not they project the Scriptures on a screen during a service. Some have pew Bibles.
Personally, I have a walking stick and handbag - at the very least - to cope with when I go to church. Sometimes I have had a musical instrument, music stand and/or puppets. I am not going to weigh myself down carrying a Bible, when the church already has them. I prefer to listen to Scripture anyway, rather than trying to find the passage,put my glasses on and follow it - often,by the time I have done that, the reading is over.

I agree absolutely about the importance of knowing, and studying, Scripture. But a person is not lacking in some way if they do not carry their own Bibles to church with them. Some people need large print, anyway - and they are enormous, and heavy to carry.

Glorygirl16 said:

Yes, you are right, we are the church. Thanks for that. However, there are many that just swallow all that they hear, without checking up that it is actually in the Bible and that is rather scary. We need to get back to our Bibles as we listen to preaching, be it in the church or on the Christian TV channels. There are a lot of strange people out there

Click to expand...

yup .
Mind you in scripture it warns against being led astray by clever speakers... Etc (paraphrased)
But in the greek the word he uses describes long convincing monologues.. Like when one person talks a lot while the majority listen passively.
That was not the norm in the book of acts .but rather dialogue was the norm .
So if one person spoke long clever words others would stand up. And correct any inconsistencies.
But clever speakers infiltrated speaking long Monologues and deceiving the hearers without being allowed to be questioned.
This is the pattern of man made buildings today.
Jesus our lord could only enter synagogues and speak as he did because they were not run on a system where only a chosen select could speak.. They were an open meeting house where Anyone could rise and speak.
And that patteen carried over to the early church in acts..
But was later squashed by those who sought to usurp control over christs body and replace him as the head.

Just a picture for your consideration.

Strong in Him said:

Absolutely.



Hmmmm. Don't know about Pentecostal/NAR churches, but a number of other churches display Scripture readings on an overhead screen. Generally, I think, this is Bible software, rather than someone typing out the relevant passage each week. There is the possibility of a spelling mistake, but I doubt very much that anyone would seek to actively deceive the congregation by changing the Scriptures.



Why, though?
Most churches have Bibles, whether or not they project the Scriptures on a screen during a service. Some have pew Bibles.
Personally, I have a walking stick and handbag - at the very least - to cope with when I go to church. Sometimes I have had a musical instrument, music stand and/or puppets. I am not going to weigh myself down carrying a Bible, when the church already has them. I prefer to listen to Scripture anyway, rather than trying to find the passage,put my glasses on and follow it - often,by the time I have done that, the reading is over.

I agree absolutely about the importance of knowing, and studying, Scripture. But a person is not lacking in some way if they do not carry their own Bibles to church with them. Some people need large print, anyway - and they are enormous, and heavy to carry.

Click to expand...

I hear you, and you are right. However, there are many churches that do not have Bibles in the pews.

The reason that I say we need to have our Bibles is the fact that I had been taught for MANY years that Matt 18:18 tells us that we need to bind the devil.

One day I was preparing a lecture, to lecture at Bible College and in the course of the lectures in the book, Matt 18:18 came up, saying that we need to bind the devil and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven etc. I have always enjoyed explaining things really well to my students and so went to look at the Scripture in my Bible together with the commentaries. It was then (to my shock) that I discovered it was talking about discipline in the church and not anything about binding Satan. And that teaching was coming from the very head of the church. Took the very wind out of my sails. That is why I say it is important to check in your Bible. The heading in my Bible, above that verse said "Discipline in the church".

Anyway, to each their own, however, I always encourage people to go back to the Bible rather than looking at an isolated verse put up on the screen in church

Alithis said:

yup .
Mind you in scripture it warns against being led astray by clever speakers... Etc (paraphrased)
But in the greek the word he uses describes long convincing monologues.. Like when one person talks a lot while the majority listen passively.
That was not the norm in the book of acts .but rather dialogue was the norm .

Click to expand...

There are several sermons recorded in the book of Acts - by Peter, Stephen and Paul.
Paul often went to synagogues and taught - yes, sometimes people argued with him, but at other times there is no mention of this. Once Paul talked for so long that someone fell asleep and fell out of the window! Acts 20.

Alithis said:

But clever speakers infiltrated speaking long Monologues and deceiving the hearers without being allowed to be questioned.
This is the pattern of man made buildings today.

Click to expand...

Not always.
Sometimes there are discussions instead of sermons, and some churches allow questions to be asked during sermons. Besides, speaking for 10-20 minutes, involving the congregation and delivering something relevant to them, is not "delivering a monologue".

Alithis said:

Jesus our lord could only enter synagogues and speak as he did because they were not run on a system where only a chosen select could speak.. They were an open meeting house where Anyone could rise and speak.
And that patteen carried over to the early church in acts..

Click to expand...

Maybe.
But Paul warns against having more than one prophet speaking at a time, 1 Corinthians 14, and tells women not to speak while someone else is talking.
I can't imagine the chaos that might follow if everyone in the congregation had the chance to jump up and say "the Lord told me to say ......", without any means of testing the spirits, or semblance of orderly worship.

Alithis said:

But was later squashed by those who sought to usurp control over christs body and replace him as the head.

Click to expand...

I don't know of ANY church that seeks to replace Christ as the head - what evidence do you have for this?
In some churches, 3, 4 or more people are involved in leading worship; the Minister/preacher just guides them/maintains some kind of order.

Glorygirl16 said:

I hear you, and you are right. However, there are many churches that do not have Bibles in the pews.

The reason that I say we need to have our Bibles is the fact that I had been taught for MANY years that Matt 18:18 tells us that we need to bind the devil.

One day I was preparing a lecture, to lecture at Bible College and in the course of the lectures in the book, Matt 18:18 came up, saying that we need to bind the devil and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven etc. I have always enjoyed explaining things really well to my students and so went to look at the Scripture in my Bible together with the commentaries. It was then (to my shock) that I discovered it was talking about discipline in the church and not anything about binding Satan. And that teaching was coming from the very head of the church. Took the very wind out of my sails. That is why I say it is important to check in your Bible. The heading in my Bible, above that verse said "Discipline in the church".

Anyway, to each their own, however, I always encourage people to go back to the Bible rather than looking at an isolated verse put up on the screen in church

Click to expand...

Oh I agree that we absolutely need to know what Scripture teaches, take verses in context, and not just select a few and teach them in isolation.
There are people who may go to church every week, not open a Bible in between and only hear the few verses that are read that morning. In my previous church, the knowledge of Scripture was appalling. Some even believed that reading Scripture was a waste of time - it was "doing good deeds" that was important to them.

Good for you for encouraging others to read, and explore, Scripture.

Strong in Him said:

Once Paul talked for so long that someone fell asleep and fell out of the window! Acts 20.

Click to expand...

...
Yes ONCE... He was leaving the next day and in all probablity they plied him with many questions...as they did not know if they would ever see him again .

Strong in Him said:

Sometimes there are discussions instead of sermons, and some churches allow questions to be asked during sermons. Besides, speaking for 10-20 minutes, involving the congregation and delivering something relevant to them, is not "delivering a monologue".

Click to expand...

we all know this is not the sunday norm..

Strong in Him said:

But Paul warns against having more than one prophet speaking at a time

Click to expand...

No one s talking about prophecy
Its a completly diff topic .

Strong in Him said:

I don't know of ANY church that seeks to replace Christ as the head - what evidence do you have for this?

Click to expand...

... The rcc ... Calls the pope " the head of the church "..thereby replacing JESUS.
Its the largest denomination on the planet...
No one is allowed to question the popes monologues..

Alithis said:

...
Yes ONCE...

Click to expand...

A guy only fell out the window once; Paul often talked/taught without interruptions recorded.

Alithis said:

...
we all know this is not the sunday norm..

Click to expand...

Probably not in most mainstream churches - it still happens though.

Alithis said:

...
No one s talking about prophecy
Its a completly diff topic .

Click to expand...

It still applies.
Talking while someone else is talking, or teaching, is bad manners and poor church order - unless the speaker has invited questions.

Alithis said:

... The rcc ... Calls the pope " the head of the church "..thereby replacing JESUS.
Its the largest denomination on the planet...
No one is allowed to question the popes monologues..

Click to expand...

1. I'm not a catholic, so I'm not going to argue about that.
2. He is head of one Christian denomination on earth; he doesn't replace Jesus, unless they teach that the pope is higher than Jesus. Queen Elizabeth is head of the Anglican church - I doubt she would ever say that she replaces Jesus.
Jesus is head of the church; the church = all believers of every denomination.

Strong in Him said:

A guy only fell out the window once; Paul often talked/taught without interruptions recorded.



Probably not in most mainstream churches - it still happens though.



It still applies.
Talking while someone else is talking, or teaching, is bad manners and poor church order - unless the speaker has invited questions.



1. I'm not a catholic, so I'm not going to argue about that.
2. He is head of one Christian denomination on earth; he doesn't replace Jesus, unless they teach that the pope is higher than Jesus. Queen Elizabeth is head of the Anglican church - I doubt she would ever say that she replaces Jesus.
Jesus is head of the church; the church = all believers of every denomination.

Click to expand...

Too many assumptions ..none of which change what i said earlier.
And yes the rcc also call the pope Holy father..which is a blasphemy.
They also call the rcc the mother of all churches.
Any church which agrres with or aligns with the rcc aligns with its sin .
Most people are just too concerned with others opinions of them to speak up in truth.
I dont suffer from that

Christianity is not an outward thing. Everything is of the heart, and from that point outward in holiness and power.

Churchianity is concerned with appearance.

Spirit of Pentecost said:

The reason those in the Old Testament, such as John the Baptist, did not speak in other tongues was because the Spirit had not yet been sent back as our comforter. Jesus didn't send back His own Spirit to comfort His followers until the Day of Pentecost, after-which all of those that were filled with the Holy Ghost began to speak in other tongues.

Why should we think that our encounter with being filled with the Spirit would be any different than what is recorded in the Scriptures?

These people might have certainly had an encounter with the Spirit, but I couldn't say they were filled with It because the evidence of tongues was not there to verity the infilling.

Click to expand...

I believe that every person who has been converted to Christ and filled with the Spirit has the ability to pray in tongues. But many, through wrong teaching, ignorance, fear of the unknown, choose not to.

In actual fact, praying in tongues is the most powerful praying that we can do, because we are allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our tongue to pray the prayer that is in the centre of God's will.

We can pray in English (or whatever our native language is) but we are praying for what we think we want or need from God. Often when people pray like this they end up asking amiss because they are expecting God to do what they want.

But praying in tongues prevents us from praying from our flesh, because we are placing our whole dependence on God for how He will answer our prayer.

The discernment between good and evil, right or wrong, is something that has resulted from the Fall. Adam and Eve never needed it, because they had continuous close fellowship with God and He was the one who led them in the way He thought was right for them.

Fellowshipping with God with tongues brings us right back into that close fellowship in the Spirit where we are putting ourselves directly subject to God's sovereignty over our lives.

This means that although tongues is not essential to salvation, there are depths of fellowship with God and divine answers to prayer that someone who prays in tongues are able to achieve, where someone who doesn't pray in tongues is not.

I am not saying that the one who prays in tongues is more sanctified or holy than one who doesn't.

However, if the gift of tongues is a genuine gift of God, which I believe it is, then those who oppose it can say what they like, even teach that it is false for today's believers; but people will still receive it from God and reap the spiritual benefit from it.

One day, those who teach against the gift may have to answer that embarrassing question from God: "Why did you teach against and work to turn people away from an important gift that I gave to the church?"

If God has anything against me on that day it may be that I have defended the gift of tongues too assertively, than have Him have it against me that I didn't promote it enough!

Spirit of Pentecost said:

Are most modern Pentecostals (and Charismatics) merely evangelical in doctrine, but believe a believer will speak in other tongues once they have been filled with the Holy Ghost?

I know that many elders and more revivalist ministers within the Assemblies of God denomination have expressed their concern that their congregations are nothing more than "evangelicals plus tongues" now. Many of them have tried to stress a stronger identification with classical Pentecostalism, Spirit baptism, the operation of the spiritual gifts, revivalism, and holiness.

But the trend of moderating from the roots of the Pentecostal faith seems to continue. Almost all arrows point to the emergence of the so-called Charismatic movement as the shifting views among classical Pentecostals. While the Charismatic movement brought the gifts of the Spirit into the mainline churches, it failed to embrace such Pentecostal taboos on dancing, going to movies, watching TV, and restrictions on one's outward attire. This sent classical Pentecostals into an identify crisis and forced them to reexamine what it meant for a believer to be Spirit-filled.

In many cases, it is hard to distinguish between many self-identifying Pentecostals and Charismatics today. Their doctrines have become blurred in many areas.

So are many Pentecostals today merely "evangelicals plus tongues"?

Click to expand...

The Assemblies of God are evangelical, I couldn't tell you for sure about other Pentecostal groups.