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.
Considering the text modifies that the apostles were Galileans speaking these languages and the cacophony of multiple languages spoken at the same time? Sure it makes sense.Do you really think that in a cosmopolitan city like Jerusalem at the the time of Pentecost anyone, let alone most, would think the speakers of a known foreign language to be drunk because they were speaking it?
If you go back and re-read the text you will discover that they were not preaching the Gospel but speaking words of praise to the Father, which is what we do in Church when we speak in tongues. If Peter had not provided an evangelistic message then the day would have been lost on the unregenerate Jews who would have walked away thinking that the Galileans were a bit odd.Show me the contradiction. The apostles on the day of Pentecost were not praying in the Spirit but proclaiming the Gospel.
Tongues existed at least up until the beginning of the Dark Age of the Church which began late in the fourth century.The "sign gift of tongues"(glossa).. existed until about100 AD) did NOTHING to build up/edify the "CHURCH", the Body of Christ, the collective body of believers.
What if I told you the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost?
Don't know how this supports your argument of a 'separate baptism of the Holy Spirit.'
The Gentiles heard, believed, received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. Sounds very familiar to me
Now we have teachings in the epistles which list out the gifts and the very same Paul who laid hands on people in Acts is the one who wrote most of the epistles.
If we don't appeal to the Gospels and to the Epistles we are left trying to 'fill in the blanks' with the recorded historical events in Acts.
It's a new one on most people who just assume that they were speaking known languages. The text, however, does not say that as we see here from your reprint of it here.Frankly that's a new one on me.
There we go - the plain words of the scriptures as you have provided for us.The text's plain language says thus:...............4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.....................6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? .............. 11 we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”
Not so.One has to truly wrest the text to deny these 'other tongues' are somehow one tongue but multiple people from multiple languages and dialects heard them speak their own language.
Actually if you read the entire passage, Paul makes a distinction and verses 16-20 make it clear the goal for edification is understanding.
So, if I'm hearing what you guys have been saying about tongues being known languages --- Chinese believers, for instance, speak to God in Russian?....................... 2 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.
Receiving the permanent indwelling of God The Holy Spirit occurs at the SALVATION EVENT...WITHOUT anything else!!
So you believe that the incident of receiving and being filled with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a "SALVATION EVENT".The JOY of SALVATION remains. It is NOT a "second blessing".
Christian or not, a human linguist would come up dry when trying to apply the natural laws of linguistics to the groanings of the Spirit of God.
Unknown tongues - not known human languages. You assume too much.
Again you assume that because they heard the disciples in their own language the disciples were speaking their particular language.
Do you really believe that one disciple was speaking, say French, and a group of French passers by just happened by the back porch where those disciples were speaking?
Do you really believe that another disciple was speaking, say Spanish, and a group of Spanish passers by just happened by the front porch where those disciples were speaking?
And on and on it goes?
Isn't it more likely - in light of the creation of the nations at Babel - what we are seeing here is a reversal of that scattering of nations and a bringing together of all nations through that reversal in the Kingdom of God by the same Spirit of God who scattered them in the first place?
Do you really think that in a cosmopolitan city like Jerusalem at the the time of Pentecost anyone, let alone most, would think the speakers of a known foreign language to be drunk because they were speaking it?
1. Paul mentions how he's glad he speaks in tongues more then them.
Mary was present at pentecost becuase remember she was one of the ones JESUS told to meet at the room for the power from on high.
The samaritans got the holy ghost though in acts...and many in acts who received it spoke in tounques...
The fact the events were so significant indicate well it's important and the fact that there was a emphasis it seems on a variety of people receiving it emphasizes how this is for people even today.
Joel himself prophesied sons and daughters and fathers receiving it.
And then peter goes up and says it's for everyone afar off it's not a coincidence.
Paul leaves no doubt that praying in the Spirit is in fact how we pray to the Father within inarticulate Angelic tongues
I know there are doctrines that do not separate the baptism of the HS with the experience of salvation but it is important to point out that in Acts the baptism of the HS is shown as a separate experience from salvation and from water baptism.
Acts 4 shows us a subsequent baptism of the HS for the original 120 present during pentecost manifested through special measure of boldness.
Acts 8 shows that the early Samaritans accepted faith in Jesus Christ as they were "[water] baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" but had not yet "received the Spirit". Although not specific in the text it is clear from the reaction from Simon that by the act of laying of of hands and prayer that something noticeable happened as Simon immediately offered money so that he could have this power too.
In Acts 10 shows us the baptism of the HS being poured out to Cornelius and his household after Peter affirms salvation. Peter reports the "Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning"
Acts 19 Paul encounters some of John's disciples he then baptises them in water then lays hands on them to receive the HS.
These accounts in Acts do not show the HS giving out gifts each differently but rather like a blanket covering all and the results are the same for all. This is simply how the accounts of Acts shows the HS and I make no apologies that it does not following the rules laid out 1 Corinthians 12-14.
As for the 3000 on the day of Pentecost the text only says they were baptised but not baptised by the HS so it would be irresponsible to look at this as an example of the baptism of the HS in Acts. The example would be from Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".
So Paul teaches one thing and Acts shows another. Both must be true experiences of the HS but rather sweeping the accounts of Acts under a rug why not teach that these experiences are also genuine. I recognize there is a lot of abuse but abuse should not deter us from teaching and acting upon what the bible shows is correct. Read Acts and it will show the baptism of the HS is a separate experience from salvation and water baptism, it shows this experience is like a pouring out (or as scripture explains a "falling") indiscriminately to all, that there are subsequent moments in a believer's life and the baptism of the HS manifests recognizable power of the HS most typically tongues.
The Baptism of the HS as a doctrine of subsequence is old school Pentecostal theology that has now been widely debunked. Virtually all respected theologians, whether continuist or cessationist, reject the idea of Baptism in the Spirit being an empowering event subsequent to salvation, but rather affirm it to be the act of uniting the believer to the body of Christ at their conversion (1 Cor 12:13). Even Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee now recognizes this:
The First Epistle to the Corinthians - By Gordon D. Fee
Some have argued for "Spirit baptism," by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term, nor clearly point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion, but on their common reception of the Spirit.
Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4-5).
If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase "in the Spirit" is most likely locative, expressing the "element" in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with "baptize' imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing), but it always refers to the element "in which" one is baptized.
In this sentence the goal of their common "immersion" in the one Spirit is "into/unto one body." The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized "into" the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like "baptize' this preposition most often has the sense of "movement toward so as to be in. In the present case the idea of "goal" seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that we be formed into one body. Hence, "we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body." This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.
To emphasize that the many ("we all") have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, "whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free." As in 7:17-24, these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture-race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.
That's not in Acts though.
Actually Mary was not present when Jesus gave those instructions. But if she was one of the those present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost who spoke in tongues then I had already included her.
That doesn't automatically mean they spoke in tongues. Luke doesn't say, but as I said they may have done. All we know is there was a manifestation of the Spirit that Simon the Sorcerer witnessed. Even if you include the Samaritans who the apostles' laid hands on, that is not a large number who spoke in tongues in Acts. Maybe around 200 or so? Hardly every beleiver in Acts of which there were thousands.
Just because a couple of hundred people spoke in tongues at unique historical events in the church's early history as a sign that whole new groups of people were to be accepted into the church, doesn't mean it must automatically follow that all beleivers from then until today can also speak in tongues.
The fact is people stopped speaking in tongues shortly after the apostolic age, and the 'tongues' that appeared around 100 years ago at the start of the Pentecostal movement is not the same as the NT gift that is fully described in Acts.
Joel didn't say they would speak in tongues.
Peter didn't say tongues was for everyone afar off who repents, he was referring to the Holy Spirit.
The reason that some Pentecostals (but not many) attempt to say that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate so that crowd could understand what the 120 were saying to the Father, is so that the tongues of Acts 2 matches that of 1 Cor 13 & 14 where tongues is always unintelligible to the human ear.
What they seem to forget is that besides Luke not saying such a thing, is that the Day of Pentecost was about the Holy Spirit falling upon the fledgling Church and not the unregenerate. I agree that outside of the Day of Pentecost that tongues are always unintelligible to the human ear, but they need to remember that Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event where the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church was observed through the 120 speaking in tongues.
but they need to remember that Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event where the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church was observed through the 120 speaking in tongues.
Show me the contradiction. The apostles on the day of Pentecost were not praying in the Spirit but proclaiming the Gospel.
Geesh that was a bit harsh. Everyone has an opinion though.No. Speaking in tongues is not for us today. Pentecostal are horribly misguided.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?