Initial Evidence: The Word or Tongues?

[rebaa]

It sounds as if you are limiting your perception of the tongues that you speak to what you can figure out. Why do they have to be languages that are preasently being spoken? Why do they have to be human languages at all?

Acts 2:4-8
nd they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
KJV

 

[He put me back together]

From Andrew:
I dont quite understnd what you are trying to say here. I meant that one did not have to tarry for many days (as in Acts 2) before one could receive the Baptism. Neither does one have to see tongues of fire descending or hear a rushing wind. BUT one should have the evidence of speaking in tongues, sooner or later.

What I am saying is, if "as it did on us" doesn't apply to every detail, how can you say that it applies to the details that YOU want it to apply to? While it is VERY evident that there was *objective* evidence at every instance of people being baptised in the Spirit in Acts, we simply don't have a conclusive argument that speaking in tongues was always that objective evidence. Now, a curious note is that whenever the signs were listed, they so happened to be tongues and prophecy. (if I'm wrong on this one, somebody correct me--and give me the numbers as well so I won't be a dolt the next time) This isn't a conclusive argument, but it is something to look at--with this, one can possibly derive that when we see these scriptures where there was obviously outward *objective* *initial* evidence but it was not listed, (like the baptism in Samaria, Acts 8) it was merely understood to be known. Perhaps those Luke was writing to understood it to be the case that when the Spirit fell, EVERYONE to whom it fell on spoke in tongues. (That's practically how we view things in pentecostal and charismatic churches today.) This still, however, isn't an argument that is firm enough to call fact, and it's not firm enough to stand on as wholeheartedly as I believe my brothers and sisters in this thread are standing on it. What is firm enough to stand on, as scriptural arguments go (for all you guys that are going to say "Wellllllll *I* stand firm on the HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!!" ) is what Jesus said in Mark 16:17-18, the Spirit announcing himself, and Paul's discriptions of the gifts in 1 Cor 12. (every one of us recieves one or many--1 Cor 12:11) We should thank God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of tongues...but we shouldn't try to make the Bible say something that it doesn't say. Call a horse a horse, and a duck a duck.

Ok now I need to get back to the desk

 

[chris320]

WOF does not have a set theology As WOF Groups that are based on the Kenyon influence do not base their evidence on a physical manifestations (which will come) but on the Gods Word say it will.

David L Smith (PhD Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) in his book "A Handbook of Comtemporary Theology" notes the following on page 190:

"While E.W. Kenyon has recently been enthroned as the rightful founder of the modern faith movement, the pretender to his throne-and the man popularly recognized as the father of the movement-is Kenneth Hagin. 'All of the major ministries of the Faith Movement readily admit Hagin's tutelage. He is universally recognized in the movement as both a teacher and a prophet'"

Kenneth Hagin's recent funeral proved this above quote correct when EVERY major leader of the world of faith movement and MOST of the major leaders in the larger charismatic movement showed up for his funeral. I know because I was there and saw most of them and even shook hands with some of them. Kenneth Hagin's theology IS "traditional word of faith theology."

Kenneth Hagin in chapter 8 of his book "The Holy Spirit and His Gifts", entitled "The Bible Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" provides subsections entitled "Scriptural Witnesses for Tongues As the Evidence of the Baptism of The Holy Spirit" and "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit And Speaking in Tongues Go Hand in Hand." As the father of the movement, he sets WOF theology with his support of tongues as the initial evidence

-Chris320

 

[hal]

I also have been blessed by kenneth Hagen's teaching.

 

[Lee]

Quote:

Greetings! I have experience seeing someone delivered from an evil spirit and someone healed when all I did was pray in tongues.

Yea? Can you share more on your experience, Hal? I am interested in this.

 

[chris320]

Also - not every incident of receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts is evidenced by toungues. Look at Acts Chapter 8:9-25, specifically at vs. 17. I see no reference to tongues when these people received the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying that they didn't speak in toungues - but there is no reference to it here.

Acts 8:17-18 says "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostle's hands the Holy Ghost was gven..."

It says "when Simon saw" What did Simon see? He saw something in the natural that indicated they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Using basic logic, if elsewhere in Acts the believers were said to be filled with the Holy Spirit when they were seen speaking in tongues, this is evidently what Simon saw. He saw them speaking with tongues after the apostle's laid hands on the believers, and he wanted to be able to do that to.

Also, there is no reference to toungues when Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18).

Not in that passage, but check out 1 Corinthians 14:18 where Paul said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." It is only logical to assume that he must have begun speaking when everyone else did after Acts 2, when hands were laid on them to be filled with the Holy Ghost.

-Chris320

 

[TheScottsMen]

I've been to 15-20 different WOF churches in the past year. Not one is the same in doctrine. WOF is not a denomination such as Catholics or Baptist but a movement. Big difference. Some WOF groups hold to the theology of JDS while others do not, not including many other doctrines. What each does hold the same are the basic and essential doctrines of Christianity. But then again, if you base the WOF as a denomination off these there is no difference between WOF and Pentecostalism in general.

 

[TheScottsMen]

Take Rhema College. I have two friends who are pastors at two different churches. One Grad from Rhema's 3 year course, the other grad with a 4 year degree from a WOF College/Church. Again, they both hold to the essential doctrines but differ widely when it comes other doctrines. (JDS, God Faith, etc..).

 

[TheScottsMen]

Anyway's, if you ask me its better its movement and not a set creed. Just for the fact it seems when one becomes a denomination it separates itself from the rest of the body of Christ.

 

[look]

Plus, it's not going to be the last movement, I believe there is one more movement and that is already being called the saints of God Movement. In this move of God, today's church will start out, walking in the anointing of the first church (the book of Acts) and the anointing on the saints will increase until the "sons of God" become manifested. The glory of the latter house shall be greater than the former house. that's all I'm saying...

But the "sons of God" has to manifest before or at the rapture

 

[look]

Anyway's, if you ask me its better its movement and not a set creed. Just for the fact it seems when one becomes a denomination it separates itself from the rest of the body of Christ.

Yeah, I've noticed that too...When WoF becomes a denomination, if history is any guide, there will be another move of God already started. You will have to simply just "surf" on to the next wave, because that's how God is restoring the things that was lost from the church.

 

[SnuP]

Acts 2:4-8
nd they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
KJV

How does one move of God become the standard for all moves of God? Realize that I'm not just talking about tongues that are spoken for the edification of the Body. 1 Cor. 14:14-19. What would be the purpose of interpretations if tongues only occure in known languages, like in the instance you gave?

 

[He put me back together]

ok ok ok ok ok What is WOF? I'm sure I'll feel like an idiot when somebody tells me...

 

[SnuP]

ok ok ok ok ok What is WOF? I'm sure I'll feel like an idiot when somebody tells me...

Well it starts with a fundamental belief that God desires to bless His people, if they will trust Him. And that a word spoken in faith has power to change the natural realm. But I assure you that an underlining theme of all of these beliefs is that you must have a deep abiding relationship with God in order for you to walk in the things of God. I believe that this is the core of it.

Often times that things that WoFer differ on are extraneous, and many times it is because someone has forgotten the relational aspect of their walk.

 

[He put me back together]

ooooook that's not very different from many pentecostal beliefs......what does the acronym stand for?

 

[rebaa]

Word of Faith

and like every thing man thinks he can do this has been carried too far. I have heard 'wof' telling folks they are sick, broke, etc because they do not have enough faith. It is a good cover when the 'word' ( not bible )doesnt come forth they way the speaker said it would. O well i best not get to angry . . .

 

[He put me back together]

ok....that's what I was thinking it might have meant I suppose it's rather new? Not the doctrines, by any means, but assigning that name to them--Me, I certainly believe words have power, and in the things Jesus taught us about believing enough to move mountains ("...nothing will be impossible for you," even) And I think it's debatable whether or not Christians should put up with being sick. But telling people that lack of faith is always the cause for bad things happening is a bit off. Instructing people to pray and have faith for everything, and to speak faith, is good. Blaming their financial troubles on lack of faith, in all cases, as an all-purpose scapegoat for bad things happening is not. We can't say that one message speaks for all of them, however.

 

[Lee]

Word of Faith

and like every thing man thinks he can do this has been carried too far. I have heard 'wof' telling folks they are sick, broke, etc because they do not have enough faith. It is a good cover when the 'word' ( not bible )doesnt come forth they way the speaker said it would. O well i best not get to angry . . .

Have faith with humility!

These are just simple words that I learn.

 

[SnuP]

It's funny people who don't really understand the movement are always, getting angry about what they think the movement stands for. But like most things, there is usually more to the story.

One of the things that is always missed, is our ephesis on having a relationship with God, specifically, being in Christ.

How can anyone expect to recieve anything without having a relationship with God?

The depth of what we mean when we say relationship is often missed, and our surmons on 'IN Christ', are often miss-understood.

Yes we believe in the power of faith, but faith without love usually ends up being selfishness. That is not what this movement is about. Most people who disagee with WoF think that their measly little salvation experience, their self propelled bible study, and their one-sided prayer time, amounts to a relationship. But how can you have a relationship, unless it involves dynamic two-way conversation? The TV show "Joan of Archadia" paints a more realistic protait of a relationship with God, then do most of these Bible thumpers. When was the last time you heard a honest, but powerful surmon, on relating to God, in a church that doesn't believe in healing for everyone?

Infact, the threads about relationship always seem to die. The WoF haters rearly show up there. And when they do, there posts are missing depth.

The only thing that I can say is that if you don't understand the relational part of WoF, then maybe you should refrain from commenting.

 

[look]

[c]VERY GOOD POINT!!![/c]