• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenKingGaze

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.
Mar 12, 2007
4,512
550
Visit site
✟301,525.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
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.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenKingGaze

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.
Mar 12, 2007
4,512
550
Visit site
✟301,525.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private


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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private

Then why does Mark use an aorist participle (past tense)?
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
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?
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private


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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenKingGaze

Prevent Slavery, support the persecuted.
Mar 12, 2007
4,512
550
Visit site
✟301,525.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
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).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

robert skynner

I respect the Bible but religion is damaging
Jun 29, 2016
324
56
Plymouth, UK
✟31,708.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0