Agreed. So that means if you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.
Upvote
0
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.
It means we are all baptized by the SAME Spirit, so as to form ONE body. We are all given the SAME Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
I addressed this earlier, and your side conveniently just skipped over it as well as my other posts which really just makes it look like you can't refute them to me. But I'll address 'this question again'.I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion when 1 Cor 12:13 states that all believers are baptized in the Spirit, and there are only 2 unique historical events in Acts which differ from that rule (both for very obvious reasons).
I addressed this earlier, and your side conveniently just skipped over it as well as my other posts which really just makes it look like you can't refute them to me. But I'll address 'this question again'.
1CO 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Being baptized BY the Spirit into the body of Christ with 'the spirit OF Christ', simply happens BEFORE being baptized IN holy spirit power from the Holy Spirit which is subsequent.
JOH 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
We, or at least I, never deny you guys can not be born again and saved believers. But there's only three group of people spoken of in Corinthians...Charismatic Christians, ungifted Christians and unbelievers. You never have answered which group you were in, in the past, so I don't expect you to answer again either. Just so everyone else knows, you haven't. We just don't know why you haven't.
When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was writing to a local church. He would have had no real conception of a universal Church as we do today. He saw the Church as a group of local churches and so when he referred to "the church" he was talking about the local church fellowship meeting. I don't think you can overlay 21st Century Church conceptions on 1st Century knowledge. Anyone who does not want to believe a part of the Bible that does not suit him can use all sorts of excuses to justify his belief. But it all comes down to "if I believe it, therefore it is true", rather than "It is true because the Bible says it."
Sola Corinth
lol
I have heard of a lot of Sola's -- but never Sola Corinth!
When you were describing all of the places that the early church met -- I thought of catacombs -- and realized that was probably after Paul was dead, when Christians met in catacombs...
Paul may have had more of a sense of the universal church than anyone at the time - he travelled extensively and formed churches all over the empire - was it like our modern concept of universal church?
Who can say?
I have no problem with your view of the universal Church. I was responding to a post where the guy was saying that over the whole universal Church not all were meant to be able to pray in tongues. And I was making the point that when Paul asked the question "Do all speak in tongues" he was referring to speaking it along with interpretation in church meetings. It is quite true that he was referring to both the universal and local church. When you think about it, the universal church is made up of all the local churches, And in the First Century, all the local churches were in unity and reflected a unified universal church. These days, that is no longer the case. We don't have a unified universal church. It is a divided Church broken up into many denominations that don't have any fellowship with each other. So it is quite true these days that not everyone in the total, divided Church of our day prays in tongues. This is because some areas of the Church believe in and obey the Bible, and others disbelieve and disobey the Bible. But in Paul's day, he wished and expected that every Christian in every local church that made up the universal church prayed in tongues, but he did not expect everyone to get up, give a tongues message and have it interpreted. Some had that gifting and some didn't.Paul, no concept of the universal church? The early church met in houses (Acts 2:42-46, Acts 5:52, etc.), at the riverside, in the marketplace, at the temple, etc. Addressing a city meant addressing the believers in that city, not one specific building. It's our modern church that's crazily divided into different denominations and often acts like the local building is the 'church' rather than the entire body of Christ. Paul always treated local groups as part of the larger unified body of Christ.
But let's look at Paul's actual words on the church:
"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many." I Cor 12:13-14
Were the Corinthians the only ones to be baptized by the Spirit? Are the Corinthians alone in the body of Christ?
"But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body." I Cor 12:20
Are the Corinthians the only believers to be diverse parts in the body of Christ? Is the rest of the church monolithic?
"But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." I Cor 12:24-26
Is the Corinthian church unique in its need to give equal concern to parts with different gifts? Is Corinth alone the only church group God put together?
"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." I Cor 12:27-31
Is Paul teaching Sola Corinth - that Corinth alone is the body of Christ? Is Paul saying that only Corinth has apostles, teachers, healers, etc.?
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." I Cor 13:8-13
Is Corinth the only church that needs to understand what love is? Are prophecy, tongues, and knowledge only to cease someday at Corinth? Are the believers of Corinth alone the ones to someday see face to face? Are the Corinthian Christians alone to have hope?
"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." I Cor 14:18-19
Is Paul saying that this is true only in Corinth, and that if he goes elsewhere he'd prefer speaking ten thousand words in tongues rather than giving instruction?
By the way, the word Ecclesia he is using is not limited to the local church. Ecclesia means "called out from/to" - that is, called out from the world and to God.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm
"Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”"
I Cor 14:22-25
Are tongues a sign for unbelievers only at Corinth, but a sign for believers elsewhere? Is prophecy for believers only at Corinth, but for unbelievers elsewhere? Is everyone speaking in tongues more intelligible if it isn't done at Corinth? Is prophesying less convicting if it isn't in Corinth?
"What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people." I Cor 14:26-42
If this instruction is based in God being a God of order, and God is a God of order in *all* the assemblies of the saints, then wouldn't the premise of order be equally applicable? Even if exact rituals slightly vary, the instruction of "order" and the purpose of "edification" should apply anywhere.
And Paul's last comments which ensure this isn't "just" for Corinth and that Corinth doesn't get to operate by different rules than everyone else:
"Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." I Cor 14: 36-40
The problem with Corinth is that it was *deviating* from the rules for the whole church and not caring about order. Paul's instruction was to correct their misunderstanding - not say that they alone and no other church group needed to be orderly and respect those with different gifts.
Paul was talking about a unified Church that drew from the same Spirit and worshiped the same Christ. Not our divided Church with its denominations who don't have the same faith, or spirit. If Paul arrived in the US, Britain or NZ, he would exclaim, "What's all this? This not the Church I planted! This is all just a great schmozzle, and I don't want anything to do with it." He would look at some churches and give them the last rites because he would see that they are dead. He would look at others and see the goofball stuff that is going on in them and just shake his head in disbelief.So in all these instances of 'church' Paul was referring to a local church?
Eph 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church"
Eph 2:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
Col 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church"
Col 1:24 "for the sake of his body, which is the church."
1 Cor 15:9 "because I persecuted the church of God."
Gal 1:13 "how intensely I persecuted the church of God"
Eph 1:22 "And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,"
Eph 3:10 "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms"
Phil 3:6 "as for zeal, persecuting the church"
There probably were lots of other writing from the Early Church. I wonder what is in the Vatican Archives?If that is true then there should be tons of other writing from the early church about this. Got any?
No, that's not what this scripture is saying. Being baptized in the Spirit is not essential for salvation. It is a second blessing. One I would prefer to not be without.Agreed. So that means if you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.
I don't doubt the authenticity of the Book of Acts. I doubt your interpretation of the facts concerning the theory of supernatural hearing at Pentecost. And now you admit that you have no supporting text from the early church. Therefore I appear to be correct in my assessment of the situation. You got nuthin'.There probably were lots of other writing from the Early Church. I wonder what is in the Vatican Archives?
Also, a lot of literature from the First Century would have been lost because of opposition and persecution. Much of early Christian literature was destroyed in those times and it was actually a miracle that what we have in the New Testament actually survived.
The book of Acts was validated by the best Christian minds over four centuries, and was included in the Canon. If the book of Acts was not totally genuine in its account of the Early Church, four centuries of the great Christian leaders would not have accepted it into the Canon. So it wasn't only Luke who was meticulous in his research, but his journal (Acts) would have been very carefully vetted for authenticity. These great leaders would not have just tossed a coin to see what went into the New Testament Canon or not.
It amuses me to think that someone in the 21st Century would doubt the authenticity of the Book of Acts. This implies that Luke wasn't an intelligent, educated man who saw the importance of meticulous research; and it implies that the principal Church fathers over the first four centuries of the church were not intelligent enough to work what what was genuine and what was not.
Paul was talking about a unified Church that drew from the same Spirit and worshiped the same Christ. Not our divided Church with its denominations who don't have the same faith, or spirit. If Paul arrived in the US, Britain or NZ, he would exclaim, "What's all this? This not the Church I planted! This is all just a great schmozzle, and I don't want anything to do with it." He would look at some churches and give them the last rites because he would see that they are dead. He would look at others and see the goofball stuff that is going on in them and just shake his head in disbelief.
Actually, he would look for a fellowship who loved Jesus, obeyed the Bible and, like him, spoke in tongues as much as they liked, because he spoke in tongues, and would not identify with those who didn't. Paul would see that those who did not speak in tongues did not have the fullness of the Spirit, and he would rebuke them for their unbelief and exhort them to believe the whole Bible, and not just the parts that suited them.
So people who will not embrace praying in tongues would reject Paul because that's what he did. So should these people cut Paul's letters out of the Bible for that reason?
In the church I grew up in tongues was cautioned against because it was considered to possibly be a demonic manifestation. Decades later they said speaking in tongues in your prayer closet was fine, just don't bring it to church. So, not forbidden, I suppose, but certainly not encouraged, or condoned. The fear of something they didn't understand and potentially couldn't control.Besides, no one is actually forbidding the practice that Pentecostal Christians think is speaking in tongues. Is there?
This it true up to a point. But you need to show that God gave the charismatic gifts in other ways beyond the two outpourings and the Apostles' hands.In addition to Steve's great points:
1) Scripture never claims gifts come only by the Apostles or that the original Apostles are necessary to be present. Conversely, it says the *Spirit* chooses how to distribute gifts, including the gifts of apostleship, teaching, etc.
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them." I Cor 12:4
"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." I Cor 12:7-11
2) Scripture never makes distinction between 'charismatic' gifts and 'other' gifts. It's special pleading to claim special categories and then claim that one category is now 'gone.'
3) The given purpose of prophecy (and tongues with interpretation) is to edify the church. (I Cor 14:4) Has the need to edify the church ceased?
4) There were other Apostles besides the original 11 (not counting Judas here) and Paul.
Explicitly mentioned are the 70/72 (Luke 10:1-17) - Mark the evangelist was probably among these; James the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19); Barnabas (Acts 13:2, Acts 14:4); Jesus (Heb 3:1); Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7,) and Matthias (Acts 1:20-26.)
Now, certainly, there are no more of the foundational Apostles nor anyone still living who walked with Christ on Earth. But the gift of apostleship is still active. An apostle is 'one who is sent' - such as for mission work, to share the gospel, plant churches, encourage believers, etc. We see husband/wife teams, and even teams of women, going out and doing this work to this day! It is a primary, necessary gift by the Spirit for the spread of the church and it's edification.
5) Claiming certain gifts do not exist does damage to the church, as it dismisses or even vilifies Christians who have been given those gifts by the Spirit. How are they to edify the church when many church groups ban them from practicing their gifts or try to convince them that the gifts the Spirit has given them are fake?
No, that's not what this scripture is saying. Being baptized in the Spirit is not essential for salvation. It is a second blessing. One I would prefer to not be without.
Here is the near context.
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
The two outpourings and the Apostle's hands were the only means of distributing the charismatic gifts according to scripture. All you claim above supports this.I disagree, of course.
Let's look at my list. (see below)
- On Pentecost the gifts did not come only through the hand of the Apostles.
- Saul was prayed for (and received the Spirit/gifts) by Ananias, who was not an Apostle.
- Cornelius household manifested prior to being baptized, therefore not through the hand of the Apostles.
1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)
Thanks.Eph 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
The Bible speaks of doctrines and knew nothing of CREEDS.
We are a long way from being in 'the unity of the faith'.
Understanding is the basis of edification. Paul says those who spoke in tongues edified themselves. They understood what they were saying.Those that spoke in tongues did not understand what they were speaking and they still managed to edify themselves.
So 1 Co 14: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit."
Also you misunderstand 'edify'. It means to build up or make strong. It refers to buildings primarily... which are built using stone not words!
Edify in this context (only used in 1 Co if memory serves) simply means to build up or strengthen - it does not necessarily entail words (though clearly words are used in the case of prophecy edifying the church).
Those who speak in tongues will tell you that they feel edified by doing so, which means it achieves its goal even when no words of understanding are given (though in my experience hearing the interpretation is also edifying).
I see from Blade's comment above, that he too felt edified by speaking in tongues: "And when I pray in tongues.. wow.. its between me and my Father. All I am saying is.. if its written.. and JESUS IS REAL.. ASK HIM. Hes IN YOU! If is of GOD and for today.. JESUS I WANT IT ALL! For HIS kingdom..for HIS glory..to help...so I die so HE can live..."
So those who spoke in tongues did not know what they were saying. And edification is something that makes people stronger or feel built up, which applies to tongues from experience as well as from scripture.
If your mind is unfruitful, your spirit must be fruitful. Or there is no point to the comparison. And your mind does not bear fruit unless you pray with your mind so others can share the blessing. Or unless you explain (interpret) what your spirit is praying for the sake of others with your mind. This passage only proves my point.When I'm praying in tongues my mind is unfruitful because the bible says no man understands what I'm saying and that includes me. But only those knowing how to rightly divide the word of truth even know there's two sources of spiritual tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
And I have done both for almost 50 years. I've prayed and sang alone in tongues, and I've prayed and sang in groups where others 'may have' or' may not have' sang and prayed along. No one was expecting an interpretation because we all understand that there are two sources of supernatural and spiritual tongues. One is from my/our spirit praying/singing which no one understands, and the other source is from the Holy Spirit as a manifesting gift of His, through us, when 'He wills' AND if we're obedient to do so. The first tongue is me speaking to God and the second tongue is the Holy Spirit speaking to man 'through a man' yielded to His prompting.
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?