Speaking in tongues

[SeaBass]

No. . .you are right no one was ever commanded to be baptized with the holy Spirit - but when one [any one] is born again of the Spirit (John 3:5,6) - they [any one] receive the holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), they are sealed with holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13) = therefore baptized with holy Spirit.

So you believe that any scripture directly related to the apostles belong only to the apostles?

Since water baptism has been commanded men can choose to obey it or not, and those that fail to obey will be accountable for that. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was only a promise and promises cannot be obeyed. Man has no choice in being baptized with the Holy Spirit, God can only do that. Therefore if I, or others, have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then that fault lies at the door of God. I believe from proper exegesis that Acts 1:1-7 only relate to the aposltes for it was only the apostles that Jesus was speaking to when He made that promise. In the book of John it was only the apostles Jesus promised the Comforter to....no one can read themselves into those verses.

Let's see - John said this and I believe it was before the apostles were chosen as he preached the baptism of repentance:

And preached saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit. Mark 1:7,8

So it is by Jesus death and resurrection that we receive holy Spirit - the promise of his Father - the Comforter which is the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. The holy Spirit is how we become one with God and Christ - Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20,21)

The same thing John said is recorded in Mt 3:11 which I have already posted aboutin other posts.

"Believe" is sometimes used as a synedoche where it stands for baptism as in Acts 2:41,44 thost the "beleved" is v44 are the ones that were baptized in v41 so "beleved" includes baptism.

 

[SeaBass]

John made the promise to a bunch of Jews including Pharisees and Saducees. Peter spoke of the Spirit being promised to those who are afar off. Did this include Gentiles? Look at Acts 10. The Comforter was promised to the apostles, but I Corinthians 2 shows that the Spirit reveals things to 'regular believers', written probably to a predominantly believing-Gentile audience. Paul wrote, "For we have the mind of Christ."

Paul wrote to the Romans that the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, but the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.



Now you repeat the falacious reasoning of the theologian B.B. Warfield who was grasping at straws to explain away miracles and still explain the evidence in the historical writings for their presence in the second or maybe even the third century (depending on when Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' was written.)
We can all acknowledge there are cases where gifts were imparted by the laying on of hands of the apostles. The problem is that you are reading 'only' into the passages where it does not exist... again.

There are several problems with your viewpoint.

1. It directly contradicts I Timothy 4:14.

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
(NASB)

Here, the gift is given through prophecy. It's not given through the laying on of hands of the apostles. The elders laid hands on Timothy in this case.
I know some people respond to this with circular reasoning, arguing that Paul had already laid his hands on him. Another argument is that this gift wasn't a 'sign gift'. The problem with that is dividing the gifts into sign gifts and non-sign gifts and saying one set is given through the apostles and the other isn't is man-made doctrine.

2. If gifts are given ONLY through the laying on of hands of the apostles, then there are no gifted teachers, administrators, showers of mercy, exhorters, etc. The Greek word 'charisma' is used of both.

3. Acts account of Paul debunks the idea that spiritual gifts were only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

Acts 9
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

So Ananias, not one of the 12, but a 'disciple' and a devout Jew, a follower of Jesus, laid hands on Paul. Paul received the Holy Ghost. Later, we see he did miracles. He said of the other apostles he had met that they 'added nothing to me.' So we can't say they laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost, be baptized with the Holy Ghost, or receive the power to do miracles or impart gifts to others.

God granted that such a great gift, the gift of apostleship, be given without the laying on of hands of the apostles. So it makes sense that lesser gifts can be given, as the Spirit wills.

4. The direct teaching of scripture is that gifts are given 'as the Spirit wills' (I Cor. 12) and according to God's will: "according to His own will" (Hebrews 2.)

In the examples we see in scripture, gifts were given either through the laying on of the apostles hands, or apart from it, accordin to God's will.

5. It is extremely unlikely that Peter was laying hands on Cornelius or those present with him before they spoke in tongues in Acts 10.

6. Prophets had been prophesying, doing miracles, and raising the dead before the apostles came along, and God never stated that the imparting of such gifts would only come through the apostles hands.

The Bible clearly shows that God can empower people to do such things either through the laying on of apostles' hands or apart from it. The didacting teaching of scripture is that gifts are given 'as the Spirit wills.'

There were no miracles taking place after the last person died upon whom one of the apostles had laid hands upon.

1) Paul laid hadns upon Timothy givng Timothy a gift. This was limited to tha apostles. No one today has any gift much less thierefore lay hands upon another and pass on a gift they do not have to begin with.

2) Acts 8:17,18 gifts were passed by the laying on of aposltes hands. No apostles today passing on any gifts.

3) Ananias may have had been given a spriitaul gift of healing, but he was not an apostle and could not pass on the Holy Spirit. Saul was not yet baptized and not a Christian and therefore would have miraculously received the HS after he was baptized, Gal 1;1,11,12 by Christ and went about preaching, Acts 9:20.

4) bible teaches miracles were for specific purpose and time, which they fullfilled 2000+ years ago therefore have ceased, vansihed away.

5) baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 is the same as Acts 2 are are the only two places baptism with the HS occurs in the NT where God baptized men without the intervention of the hands of man.

6) In the NT God use signs to reveal the NT word and He did so with signs and miracles and after that word was completely revealed with John penning Revelaton, those sign fulfilled thier purpose and ceased, 1 Cor 13; Eph 4.

Jn 20:30.31, John wrote signs down, he said these "are written they you mihgt believe" in the perfect tnese meaning those signs CONTINUE to induce a belief in people today as they did 2000+ years ago when actually performed. So God need not to repeat those signs today for people to believe in. People can read those sign John wrote down and believe in those written down signs. Saying signs are needed today defeats the entire purpose of John writing them down.

 

[SeaBass]

Expanding on Acts 9:17.

In verse 12 it says

"And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight."


Verse 12 says nothing about Ananias giving Saul the Holy Spirit but just giving sight. Nothing in the context of Acts 9;12-18 says it was by Ananias hands Saul received the Holy Spirit. Two things occurred (1) Ananias put his hands on Saul and Saul was (2) baptized. Saul would have received his sight by (1) and the Holy Spirit by Christ after being baptized (2).

 

[presidente]

Expanding on Acts 9:17.

In verse 12 it says

"And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight."


Verse 12 says nothing about Ananias giving Saul the Holy Spirit but just giving sight. Nothing in the context of Acts 9;12-18 says it was by Ananias hands Saul received the Holy Spirit. Two things occurred (1) Ananias put his hands on Saul and Saul was (2) baptized. Saul would have received his sight by (1) and the Holy Spirit by Christ after being baptized (2).

It still disproves your assertion that one could only receive the ability to do miracles except through the hands of the apostles. Paul was filled with the Spirit and even made an apostle without the laying on of hands of the twelve. Ananias had laid hands on him. He may have been baptized with the Holy Spirit right at that time. Either way, the account in scripture disproves your theory.

And Acts 9:17 tells us


And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

One of the reasons Jesus sent Ananias to Saul is that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke uses that type of language to refer to baptism with the Holy Spirit earlier in the book. Whether you accept that or not, we still see a man who would be able to do miracles and received even the gift of apostleship without the laying on of hands of an apostle.

 

[presidente]

It makes sense to God Who said it.

It is not about our speech, knowledge or understanding it is about the completeness of the word of God. God's strength is perfected in our weaknesses.

Your reading your own ideas into scripture. Prophecy and miracles will continue until the two witnesses. They have to be around at that time.

Paul said, "So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. " (I Corinthians 1:7.) Notice it is in the context of 'utterance and knowledge.' I Corinthians 13 mentions knowledge and two types of utterance-- tongues and prophecy. Your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 doesn't fit the context, and contradicts this other scripture.

You will not to see because you desire that which is not yours. Just like somebody else in scripture who wanted the gift of the Holy Spirit for money.

If you are going to slander someone, it has to make sense. If someone wants to make money, speaking in tongues isn't the way to do it.

 

[presidente]

The Bible does teach that the Sign Gifts are for Israel.

The purpose of those Sign Gifts was to confirm the word to the Jews.


1 Corinthians 1:22 KJV
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

This talks about what the Jews demanded. The passage continues to tell us that Christ is the wisdom and the power of God to them that believe. Them that believe includes Gentiles.

In Acts 14, Paul healed a man by the power of God in a Gentile city. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas tell of the miracles they did among the Gentiles. Later in Acts, Paul healed the sick-- Gentiles-- on an island. There is no evidence of any other Jew being present, except Luke, who some say was a prostelyte.

1 Corinthians 14:22 KJV
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Gentiles can believe not. The example that follows does not specify that the unlearned or unbeliever be a Jew or Gentile.

God also demonstrated His miraculous power to the Egyptians that the Egyptians might know that He is the Lord. God worked miracles through Moses. Even pre-Sinai, miracles were not exclusively for the benefit of Israel. (Paul appealed to the pre-Sinai justification of Abraham by faith as a basis for doctrine. Christ appealed to pre-Moses principles of marriage for his teaching on divorce and remarriage.)

Furthermore, we are told to covet earnestly the best gifts (1 Cor. 12:31), and in three different lists, tongues shows up at the bottom.

Interpretation of tongues is listed below tongues in a couple of those lists, and prayer for it is explicitly commanded in a certain case in I Corinthians 14:13. So even the gift at the bottom of the list may be prayed for.

 

[Kerry]

I don't get it whats the beef against tongues. I think people love God at a distance, but when He is upfront and in your face, they say the same as when God showed Himself to Israel. They said never do that again least we die, send us your prophet.

 

[LT]

So where in the Bible does it say that it is complete?

Is there no more to the mysteries of God than what is recorded in the Bible?

Christ is the perfection and completion of the Word, not the Bible.

The Bible is infallible, and sufficient for all the purposes that God wants to communicate to man in this temporal world,
but that doesn't mean that it is the 'completion'.

Man has created that doctrine.



The Bible is the measuring rod, and we can test the spirits by measuring them against the Scriptures, because God does not contradict Himself.

 

[Kerry]

Man inventing tongues? I don't think so. The reason we speak different languages is because of God. Through out the NT tongues are mention and encouraged. Paul said do not forbid tongues. Paul said I wert that you all spoke in tongues and I speak in tongues more than you all. Then he gave the order of how tongues and interpretation should operate in the church and gave it by the inspiration of the tongue giver ( the Holy Spirit). If it were just for Apostles then why give the order? Seems to me that people were just speaking one after a another or at the same time in meetings and nothing was gained. So Paul gave the order of how it is to work in public meetings. Then Paul said I will pray in the Spirit and I will pray with my understanding. What was He talking about? Tongues. When we pray in tongues, we do not understand as it is the Spirit praying through us. Praying in tongues is praying the will of the Father, because when we pray with our understanding, we pray our will.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

One is born again by water baptism. This new birth of Jn 3:5 is not some kind of spirit baptism but one that involves water. In the great commission of Mt 28:19,20 water baptizing was the means as to how one was made a disciple. Acts 2:41, one has not received the gospel message until he has been water baptized.

It's funny then how the Gentiles in Acts 10 heard and believed the word and received the holy Spirit before they were water baptized. The new birth is being born again of God's spirit that new man, the new creature in Christ is 'born' via the holy Spirit.

 

[SeaBass]

It still disproves your assertion that one could only receive the ability to do miracles except through the hands of the apostles. Paul was filled with the Spirit and even made an apostle without the laying on of hands of the twelve. Ananias had laid hands on him. He may have been baptized with the Holy Spirit right at that time. Either way, the account in scripture disproves your theory.

And Acts 9:17 tells us


And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

One of the reasons Jesus sent Ananias to Saul is that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke uses that type of language to refer to baptism with the Holy Spirit earlier in the book. Whether you accept that or not, we still see a man who would be able to do miracles and received even the gift of apostleship without the laying on of hands of an apostle.

Acts 9:12 Ananias was sent to give his sight back, it is assumed Ananias gave him the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:17,18 giving the HG was by the hands of apostles. It took Ananias going to Saul for Saul to get his sight back or for Ananias to command Saul to be baptized where then Saul would receive the HG.

 

[SeaBass]

So if you were to spend some time below the sea down there with the bass, with no air, you'd be fine?

What if you never ate again. Jesus said that man does not live by breat alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Notice 'bread alone.' We do need bread, too. It is not true to say that all we need is the Bible.

Nor is it possible to conclude that all we need is the Bible or that we do not need spiritual gifts from the passage you referenced. Read carefully. It says all scripture is given that the man of God might be fully equipped. It does NOT say that scripture is all that is given tha tthe man of God may be fully equipped. Reading Cessationism into this verse requires sloppy logic or not reading carefully enough.

Also, what scripture says about spiritual gifts, such as that they are given 'as the Spirit wills' is profitable for doctrine as well. We need to believe what the Bible teaches about spiritual gifts instead of trying to explain it away.

A couple of chapters before the one you referenced, there, Paul told Timothy to stir up the spiritual gift that was in him by the laying on of his hands. Why would he say that if the gift was going to cease in the short time it took for Timothy to reach chapter 3? Chapter 4 wouldn't be inspired if that were the case, either, or the rest of the Bible written after I Timothy 3.

The word makes "the man of God may be perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works."

1 Cor 13 and EPh 4 say the signs ceased

Jn 20:30,31 John wrote signs down where thry do not need to be repeated.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

In the context, what was then "in part" would be made "perfect"/whole/complete. Christ was not in part/imperfect only to be made complete/perfect.

In the context when that which is perfect is come - THEN that which is in part shall be done away - NO NEED for it then because now we see "darkly BUT THEN FACE TO FACE now I know in part; BUT THEN shall I know even as also I am known.. . . . goes along with Beloved now are we the sons of God and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; FOR WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS.

 

[SeaBass]

Your theology is corrupt from the floor up. You are now on ignore.

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

 

[Kerry]

Maybe, just maybe, Jesus had a bad moment or just missed it when He said this

Mark 16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

He didn't say Apostles or leaders or special people. He said those that believe. What do you believe?

 

[peacefulbeliever]

[/COLOR]Since water baptism has been commanded men can choose to obey it or not, and those that fail to obey will be accountable for that. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was only a promise and promises cannot be obeyed. Man has no choice in being baptized with the Holy Spirit, God can only do that. Therefore if I, or others, have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then that fault lies at the door of God. I believe from proper exegesis that Acts 1:1-7 only relate to the aposltes for it was only the apostles that Jesus was speaking to when He made that promise. In the book of John it was only the apostles Jesus promised the Comforter to....no one can read themselves into those verses.

The same thing John said is recorded in Mt 3:11 which I have already posted aboutin other posts.

"Believe" is sometimes used as a synedoche where it stands for baptism as in Acts 2:41,44 thost the "beleved" is v44 are the ones that were baptized in v41 so "beleved" includes baptism.

We are told to put off the old man and to put on the new man. . . . we can not walk by the spirit if we are not indwelt with the Spirit - we are indwelt with the Spirit at the new birth - we are totally immersed with the holy Spirit we are born again - baptized with holy Spirit.

How in the world do you learn scripture if the Comforter/holy Spirit does not lead you and guide you into all truths?

 

[SeaBass]

It's funny then how the Gentiles in Acts 10 heard and believed the word and received the holy Spirit before they were water baptized. The new birth is being born again of God's spirit that new man, the new creature in Christ is 'born' via the holy Spirit.

God baptizing the Gentiles with the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with their salvation;

--God gave Cornelius a vision to send for Peter
--God gave Peter a vision that Gentiles were not 'unclean'
--God baptized the Gentiles with the Holy Ghost

In Acts 11 Peter tells the Jews in Jerusalem all these things God had done. It was God's way of showing the Jews salvation was not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles. The result of these actions of God..."When they (Jews) heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

 

[SeaBass]

In the context when that which is perfect is come - THEN that which is in part shall be done away - NO NEED for it then because now we see "darkly BUT THEN FACE TO FACE now I know in part; BUT THEN shall I know even as also I am known.. . . . goes along with Beloved now are we the sons of God and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; FOR WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS.

The context in EPh 4 and 1 Cor 13 have to do with the perfect/complete revealed word of God. It was in part in the first century, in the process of being written by the use of miraculous signs and when is was perfected/completed the signs went away, ceased, vanished for they served their purpose. Christ was not imperfect only to be made perfect sometimes later, so the context is not about Christ.

 

[LT]

In the context when that which is perfect is come - THEN that which is in part shall be done away - NO NEED for it then because now we see "darkly BUT THEN FACE TO FACE now I know in part; BUT THEN shall I know even as also I am known.. . . . goes along with Beloved now are we the sons of God and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; FOR WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS.

It is a shame that such an excellent point has fallen on such deaf ears. Pearls to swine.

 

[Drett]

It states the comforter will teach you all things. What things have you learnt since Jesus ascended ?