Regarding testing interpretations, if an interpretation of tongues confesses that Jesus is Lord, would you oppose it?
Tongues Again???
- Thread starter 88
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
However, if you think that testing the person is the way to prove or disprove the truth of a doctrine then you probably are not familiar with the passage in Luke 4:17-20.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Ok, he found were the place it was written when he unrolled the scroll containing the writings of Isaiah, that doesn't mean he began reading what was written, and if he did then why did he read the following?
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
So where is it written "and recovering of sight to the blind" in the Book of Isaiah?
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God;
Isaiah 61
Seems as if the book was handed unto him to read and he opened the book and found where it was written then maybe he found where it was written that the book is delivered unto a man who is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And it is written in verse 21, And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
J
jaybird88
Guest
Isaiah 8:19
19 And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
19 And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
How do you suppose one can assess the accuracy of the interpretation? I know of a situation where a college student walked into a church meeting where tongues were supposedly spoken and when it was the time such a thing he stood and spoke. He spoke the Hebrew alphabet and some one in the congregation stood to interpret. Not a single person in the building knew he was only reciting the Hebrew alphabet.
Needless to say the interpretation did not match the tongues. Experience is not a wholly reliable method of determining truth.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Even if they say so, but yet preach that you can receive the Holy Spirit again with evidence of tongues when 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 warns christians to beware those that do?
The problem I have with tongues that comes with no interpretation and even some that claim that it does come with interpretation, are the ones that testify of receiving that tongues later on in life as a saved believer by receiving the Holy Spirit "again".
In which case, I do not believe the ones being interpreted is actually being manifested by the Holy Spirit to interpret that tongue, but "winging it" as that tongue is truly not of other men's lips to speak unto the people as in truly not God's gift of tongues.
Some will lay claim that they can speak in tongues and interpret their own tongue, but 1 Corinthians 12th chapter exposes that person as lying because the Holy Spirit divides the gifts severally as He wills so that one member of the body cannot say to another that I do not need you.
Which testifies that God's gifts of tongues is not a stand alone gift at any time at all; and that His gift of tongue is for speaking among the people; not to be used as a prayer language. John 16:13 testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself; that He can only speak what He hears; that is found in all BIBLES as that means He cannot use God's gift of tongues as a prayer language.
Only the KJV has Romans 8:26-27 translated correctly as verse 26 cites that His intercessions cannot be uttered and hence unspeakable and hence no sound at all. That is why verse 27 is testifying to ANOTHER that knows the mind of the Spirit which is how His intercessions are being given to God the Father; by way of the Son of God knowing the mind of the Spirit.
But before any body lose themselves in Paul's words again, remember that scripture cannot go against scripture to testify that tongue speakers are reading Paul's words wrong while ignoring how they got that tongue later on in life as a believer; thus preaching another baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues thus removing themselves as something all believers are to share so as to not exalt themselves over others by....
1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
So there is no extra baptism of the Holy Ghost because there is no other drink of the One Spirit; and Paul said that in relations to the gifts of the Spirit so there is no extra receiving of the Holy Ghost to get any of those gifts.
And... 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 testifies that those that preach another baptism of the Holy Ghost even with evidence of tongues which never comes with interpretation......they are no longer preaching the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
May God cause the increase in recovering some from this snare of the devil so that they may return to their first love, shun vain & profane babbling and chase no more after seducing spirits to receive after a sign so they can rest in Him that they are filled when they had come to Him the first time in believing in Him when they were saved.
What language did Peter speak seeing ten different nation at a time heard it in their own tongue ? Did they take turns?
That would be the sign seekers.
They had assurance and not like those who must perform a work because they have no assurance from the scriptures,.
Its a parable representing God's approval ..God used his tongue to lick it up to show his approval
1Kings 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
Last edited:
There were 120 people in the upper room. Peter was not doing all the talking when they spoke in tongues. We do know from Acts 2 that they spoke in tongues. We do not know how they did it, whether they took turns, or who spoke what language.
The straw man again.
The problem with allegorical interpretation is that you pretty much have to believe some divine revelation is involved to believe some of them are true. If you don't accept the 'literal layer' of what the Bible means, why would you understand the allegories?
There are some things in the life of Jesus that do teach 'allegorical lessons.' I think even many literalists would tend to agree to that when it comes to the cursing of the fig tree. But that is no excuse for rejecting the Biblical teaching on the Spirit gifting individual believers to work miracles, prophesy, etc. There were people with these gifts in the first century also whose writings were not preserved in scripture for us to interpret as allegory. Allegorical interpretation is no excuse for rejecting the straightforward teachings of scripture.
The verse you cite doesn't prove your point. If you feel that is doctrinal error, keep in mind that Paul corrected a lot of error among those who were genuine believers, not followers of a false Gospel.
In Acts 8, those Samaritans Philip preached to had received the Gospel. They had believed. They had been baptized. Given what Paul writes about soteriology and the Holy Spirit, can you really say these believers did not have the Holy Spirit? Can you say that none of them had the seal of the Spirit? The issue here was not their salvation. But the Spirit had not come upon them. Luke uses 'receive' the Spirit, that type of terminology for this experience. After they had believed, the apostles laid hands on them and the Spirit fell on them.
In Acts 19, those who had followed the teachings of John had already believed after Paul preached Jesus to them. They had already been baptized. Were they unsaved at that point? Then Paul laid hands on them and the Spirit came upon them.
Paul, writing to believers, told them to be filled with the Holy Ghost. We he preaching a false gospel by telling those who had presumably received the seal of the Spirit, to be filled with the Holy Ghost? Certainly not.
The apostles were filled and baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2. in Acts 4, they prayed and were filled with the Spirit again. Is Acts preaching a false Gospel?
Clearly not. Ananias came to Paul that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. But chapters later, Paul was full of the Holy Ghost when he declared that Elymas would be blind.
I don't see how your conclusion can be derived from scripture or the evidence you present. It is best to be careful about judging others and especially the work of the Spirit. We are to test the spirits to see if they are from God, but our tests must be Biblical.
Your conclusion is not supported by I Corinthians 12, and it contradicts I Corinthians 14. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, Paul writes, except he interpret that they church may be edified. in verse 13, Paul tells the one who speaks in a tongue to pray that he may interpret. The idea of an individual who speaks in tongues interpreting tongues is mentioned twice in the chapter. Verse 13 would seem to be about interpreting his own tongue. None of these things contradict the 'I have no need of thee' passage.
I would encourage you to have a higher standard of evidence before you start throwing proverbial stones, and also to pray for insight from the Holy Spirit into the scriptures that you use to condemn others and potentially the work of the Spirit.
There is no logical connection between the evidence you present and the conclusion you draw. What does the verse about the Spirit not speaking of himself have to do with your assertion that tongues can't be a 'prayer language'?
I do not see a distinct 'prayer language' of speaking in tongues, but what I do see in I Corinthians 14 is that the same type of tongues that could be interpreted in church can also be used in prayer.
I agree that this verse has been misused as a prooftext for prayer in tongues. Tongues in Acts 2 were spoken as the Spirit gave them utterance. Clearly they CAN be uttered.
Does someone here have the gift of interpretation
? I think you need to reword that if you want to be understood. Maybe you left something out.I've cited counterexamples to your argument (e.g. Acts 4.)
In the verse you quote above the Spirit baptizes into one body.
In the preaching of John Jesus baptizes into the Holy Spirit.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is Jesus? Do you believe that the body of Christ (us) is the Holy Spirit? I hope your answer is 'no'.
Again, the verse you refer to does not prove your point. Also, many Pentecostals and Charismatics believe in interpretation of tongues and practice it in their meetings.
Depends on what that person MEANS by the word LORD.
Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Last edited:
Why do you fight against Testing the Spirits behind the supposedly miraculous, when you are commanded to do so?
I am not repeating myself yet again, my answers about what verses, will never change.
The Greek singular tongues, usually refers to the counterfeit of Tongues, while the Greek plural usually refers to the Genuine Tongues.
Why is your experience NEVER to be TESTED with Scripture or even questioned?
My question is not fighting against testing the spirits. How is discussing the Bible and how it applies opposed to testing the spirits? How is challenging a wrong understanding of scripture opposed to testing the spirits?
Questioning your assertions is along the same vein as testing the spirits.
I am not repeating myself yet again, my answers about what verses, will never change.[/quote]
This is truly sad. Committed to never learn, grow, develop in ones understanding of the word of God on a particular issue.
Do you have any specific examples? What is the evidence for this theory? It sounds rather nonsensical. What other word changes so drastically in meaning by being put in the plural, just because the reader wants it to?
What about this verse:
[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
Would Paul command that counterfeit tongues be interpreted?
No, I have never argued that. That is not my position at all. Tests must be Biblical tests, though, not tests based on theories and eisegesis. Show me where Paul tested tongues the way you think tongues should be tested.
I already showed you all of that, and you rejected without even considering it.
NO I DID LEARN, I Tested the Spirits in the early 80's, and found the Charismatic Experience, DID NOT MEASURE UP TO WHAT THE DISCIPLES AND THE APOSTLES DID, and therefore it is a counterfeit of some type.
Last edited:
VCO, I show how your assertions contradict scripture and you ignore, dodge, and talk about something else.
It violates the the law not to add to prophecy seeing we have it whole and no longer in part for over two thousand years. Thats the only test we need . Are you receiving new revelations directly from God? Or like one poster offered?
Isaiah 8:19 19 And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
No, you do not show me anything, but how you MIS-interpret Scripture. You forget, back in the spring of 1980, my wife and I both believed in the Charismatic Tongues, and she had spoken in Tongues for many years. She through her own Bible Studies, discovered that the Charismatic Tongues, were purely a Counterfeit. And I actually started my six month INTENSE study of Charismatic Tongues trying to prove her WRONG. Two weeks, into that intense study, I had proven to myself beyond all DOUBT, that Charismatic Tongues was a false imitation or counterfeit of what the Disciples and Apostles DID. Therefore, I spent the next 5 1/2 month of that INTENSE Study of the Charismatic TONGUES, learning everything I could that supports a NON-CHARISMATIC UNDERSTANDING OF TONGUES. Everything you have tried to show me, I have seen a hundred times or more from others; and there still is NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. And the Charismatic Understanding is all nothing more than MIS-interpretation, with experience over-ruling what the Scriptures actually say.
Look how Young' Literal Translation words that VERSE:
Isaiah 8:19 (YLT)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] And when they say unto you, `Seek unto those having familiar spirits, And unto wizards, who chatter and mutter, Doth not a people seek unto its God? --For the living unto the dead!
Gifts of the Spirit are not chattering and muttering. The Holy Spirit is not the dead.
VCO,
Let's consider your line of argument and the scriptures. Acts 2 shows the apostles speaking in tongues where people present understand it. I Corinthians 14 talks about speaking in tongues where no one present understand, and encourages interpretation of tongues. From this you conclude that if speaking in tongues is genuine, that people present will understand. This is not rightly dividing the word of truth. The gift is 'divers tongues.' The gift is not making people be present who understand the tongue.
You assert that there were Corinthians cursing Christ in church, and try to associate that with speaking in tongues. I Corinthians 12 mentions the Corinthian's idolatrous past, says no one speaking by the Spirit of God curses Christ. Then it says no one says Jesus is Lord but buy the Holy Ghost, and lists several gifts that are manifestations of the Spirit, clearly referring to the Spirit of God. Divers tongues is listed among the manifesations of the Spirit. There is no reference to a counterfeit gift of tongues in the passage. The statement against cursing Christ is in a section about their pagan past. There is no reference to cursing Christ in church.
You assert that generally 'tongue' refers to a false tongue and 'tongues' refer to the plural. The KJV uses the plural and singular of the word 'tongue' consistently with the Greek, as a quick check of a concordance shows. The idea that a singular would mean one thing and a plural would mean another is highly irregular. You would think one would need to actually read some statements from actual Greek experts who show real evidence (not a non-committal assertion by one man with an honorary doctorate) to believe this theory. Why would the singular only mean fake pagan ongues in one verse but not another? Is it just so the reader can make a verse means what he wants it to?
None of the references to 'tongue' back up the idea that the singular of the word is pagan or fake. In fact, in verse 26, a 'tongue' is something Paul says to 'let it be done unto edifying.' Why let it be done if it is fake or pagan? Verse 27 gives instructions about interpreting a tongue. Whe interpret if it is not edifying? Verse 13 encourages the one who prays an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. Verse 14 is a hypothetical scenario in which Paul prays in a tongue.
There are only 7 references to tongue in the singular in the chapter. One refers to the phyiscal organ. Where are the fake tongues verses?
Have I misrepresented any of your views?
Your and your wife's experiences regarding speaking in tongues are not a basis for doctrine. They can't change what the scriptures say or mean. Even if her experiences were fake, that wouldn't mean that 'tongue' in I Corinthians 14 conveniently means 'fake pagan tongue' arbitrarily in some verses. You are also using a criteria to interpret speaking in tongues in Acts that doesn't hold up when reading I Corinthians 14. It exposes your criteria as eisegesis. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that the gift is not people being around that understand the tongue.
VCO,
Let's consider your line of argument and the scriptures. Acts 2 shows the apostles speaking in tongues where people present understand it. I Corinthians 14 talks about speaking in tongues where no one present understand, and encourages interpretation of tongues. From this you conclude that if speaking in tongues is genuine, that people present will understand. This is not rightly dividing the word of truth. The gift is 'divers tongues.' The gift is not making people be present who understand the tongue.
You assert that there were Corinthians cursing Christ in church, and try to associate that with speaking in tongues. I Corinthians 12 mentions the Corinthian's idolatrous past, says no one speaking by the Spirit of God curses Christ. Then it says no one says Jesus is Lord but buy the Holy Ghost, and lists several gifts that are manifestations of the Spirit, clearly referring to the Spirit of God. Divers tongues is listed among the manifesations of the Spirit. There is no reference to a counterfeit gift of tongues in the passage. The statement against cursing Christ is in a section about their pagan past. There is no reference to cursing Christ in church.
You assert that generally 'tongue' refers to a false tongue and 'tongues' refer to the plural. The KJV uses the plural and singular of the word 'tongue' consistently with the Greek, as a quick check of a concordance shows. The idea that a singular would mean one thing and a plural would mean another is highly irregular. You would think one would need to actually read some statements from actual Greek experts who show real evidence (not a non-committal assertion by one man with an honorary doctorate) to believe this theory. Why would the singular only mean fake pagan ongues in one verse but not another? Is it just so the reader can make a verse means what he wants it to?
None of the references to 'tongue' back up the idea that the singular of the word is pagan or fake. In fact, in verse 26, a 'tongue' is something Paul says to 'let it be done unto edifying.' Why let it be done if it is fake or pagan? Verse 27 gives instructions about interpreting a tongue. Whe interpret if it is not edifying? Verse 13 encourages the one who prays an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. Verse 14 is a hypothetical scenario in which Paul prays in a tongue.
There are only 7 references to tongue in the singular in the chapter. One refers to the phyiscal organ. Where are the fake tongues verses?
Have I misrepresented any of your views?
Your and your wife's experiences regarding speaking in tongues are not a basis for doctrine. They can't change what the scriptures say or mean. Even if her experiences were fake, that wouldn't mean that 'tongue' in I Corinthians 14 conveniently means 'fake pagan tongue' arbitrarily in some verses. You are also using a criteria to interpret speaking in tongues in Acts that doesn't hold up when reading I Corinthians 14. It exposes your criteria as eisegesis. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that the gift is not people being around that understand the tongue.
I am saying that that is only one test in determining a believer is abiding in Him when they confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The devil believes Jesus is God... what does that prove?
Romans 8:[SUP]9 [/SUP]But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
So let's really look at Acts 8 with His help..
That is a long one to explain.
Acts 8:[SUP]5 [/SUP]Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.[SUP]6 [/SUP]And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.[SUP]7 [/SUP]For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.[SUP]8 [/SUP]And there was great joy in that city.
Philip got a following; a group of fans that was following him hearing & seeing the miracles which he did. They gave "heed" unto those things Philip had spoken, but they were not believing in Jesus Christ yet.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:[SUP]10 [/SUP]To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.[SUP]11 [/SUP]And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
Luke had given the background on Simon as one being responsible for all those unclean spirits vexing the Samaritans.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.[SUP]13 [/SUP]Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
The people, including Simon, believed the "things" concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, but whoever heard of a saved believer that believes in the "things" about what Philip was preaching as opposed to believers that believes in Him personally? They believed, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:[SUP]15 [/SUP]Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:[SUP]16 [/SUP](For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)[SUP]17 [/SUP]Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Why didn't they receive the Holy Ghost when they were water baptized? Why was it necessary for the laying on of hands by the disciples? Think about it for a moment. Simon was among them; and they have been vexed by that man with unclean spirits. To receive the Holy Spirit the way the Gentiles had done in Acts 10th chapter, would have been disastrous because fear would have arisen that the supernatural event was the unclean spirits coming back & Simon was up to no good, doing his evil again in vexing them. The laying on of the hands by the disciples had to remove any doubt as to what was happening that this was not from Simon.
And as it turned out, Simon's heart was not quite right with the Lord even though he was among them as someone that believes in the things Philip was preaching that he was water baptized in His name.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,[SUP]19 [/SUP]Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.[SUP]20 [/SUP]But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.[SUP]21 [/SUP]Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.[SUP]23 [/SUP]For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
So this gall of bitterness was responsible in motivating Simon in vexing the Samaritans with sorcery in the past and that sin or iniquity still had him in its bondage.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.[SUP]25 [/SUP]And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
So if you look at the whole situation, God had to work at the pace that these sensitive and sin bonded people could receive as they were fans of what Philip was doing for why they were following Philip where eventually, their mentality shifted from Philip & the disciples to the Lord because that was when Simon's focus had shifted as well. Jesus Christ became personal to him to believe in Him and not just believe in the "things" about the kingdom of Heaven and the name of Jesus Christ.
I understand why those followers of Philip had not received the promise of the Holy Spirit yet because they were being fans of Philip, being an oppressed people that just come out from under the terror of Simon the sorcerer. They saw Philip as the one doing God's work of casting the unclean spirits out; until the disciples came to see that it is God that is working; for assuredly, Simon needed to see that as well, because he thought he could buy what the disciples were doing, and then the rebuke lifted his sights higher that this was only something God can do that the disciples and Philip were not the actual ones doing these supernatural deeds that Simon was accustomed in doing so when vexing the people.
I point out that these Samaritans did not speak in tongues when they had received the promise of the Holy Ghost, because all that was among them were just Samaritans and so there was no need to speak another language to declare the wonderful works of God to foreigners among them because there were none among them at that time.
That's the long winded explanation of it as it lines up with all the scripture in the N.T. and so you cannot say they were believers in Jesus Christ or that they had believed in Him when they only believed in the "things" Philip was preaching.
The Gentiles in Acts 10 received the Holy Ghost before they had confessed Him with their mouths, before they had been water baptized in His name, and before they even came forward or whatever. It was after they had heard the word that they will receive remission of sins for all those that believe in Him, and that was why they had received the promise; and they spoke in tongues because the believing Jews were among them as well as other foreigners & mayhap non-believing Jews as well as a testimony unto them that the Good News has come to the Gentiles as well.
So look at the difference between the two events and ask yourself why Luke had written the things that he did in the way that he did for why these "followers" of Philip had not received the Holy Ghost yet, because the Gentiles were receiving Him right after they believed in Him Whom they had heard whereas the Samaritans believed in the "things". I can understand how the Samaritans would be overly sensitive with Simon among them for the necessity of the laying on of hands so that fear and false accusations do not fly; but it also shows these people as starting to believe in Him and wanting to believe in Him, but not yet. Sort of like...this father for the help of his child whom was possessed.
Mark 9:[SUP]23 [/SUP]Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.[SUP]24 [/SUP]And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
So you cannot use Philip and the Samaritans as a clear cut support for preaching a baptism of the Holy Spirit as separate from salvation. Believers that experience the supernatural phenomenon later in life after having been a believer tends to fit that experience into the Book of Acts just as you did with Acts 19 when those certain disciples were not believers nor disciples of Jesus Christ. Wayward believers tend to read what they want to read, and ignore what is actually written so as to support this phenomenon that happens later in life as when they had received the Holy Ghost.
This is where the preaching of "another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues comes from also where they believed they have the Holy Ghost when they were saved, but promote this as a second phenomenon in order to get tongues which never comes with interpretation.
This is also where some preach that if you do not speak in tongues, you do not have the Holy Spirit, and thus you are not saved comes from too.
Everybody trying to fit what they believe into the events in Acts in the Bible, like in Acts 8 as the last group of believers in error have done even though I would point out that the Samaritans did not speak in tongues in that event.
I point out what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and that was in relations to the gifts of the Spirit to dispel all notions that one has to get another drink of the Spirit in order to get any gift from the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]10 [/SUP]To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:[SUP]11 [/SUP]But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.[SUP]12 [/SUP]For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
So once again... 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 warns believers to beware those that preach another gospel, another Jesus, or another spirit to receive as it reproves what you are preaching for you would separate the baptism with the Holy Spirit as being separate from salvation, and that can never be, for that would be preaching another gospel. Believers are saved when they have received the promise of the Spirit & not before.
to be continued.. God be willing
that incident you are referring to is not supporting what you are preaching as.
Acts 12:1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
The phrase "certain disciples" meaning Paul came across some disciples but did not know what kind. John the Baptist had disciples too even after he was beheaded; so keep that in mind. You cannot say they were disciples of Jesus Christ for then Luke would have testified that they were disciples in Jesus Christ, but here, we can read on that they were not disciples of Jesus Christ nor were they believers in Jesus Christ.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
So here, Paul has a clue as to inquire what kind of disciples they were, because all believers in Jesus Christ has the Holy Spirit. That was why Paul had asked the next question of what water baptism they were under.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Now Paul knows what kind of disciples that they were; disciples of John the Baptist's. So here, we read on that Paul points to Jesus Christ as being the One that John the Baptist has talked about in coming.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
See that? Paul told them to believe on Christ Jesus. And so they did and that was when they were water baptized in His name.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.[SUP]7 [/SUP]And all the men were about twelve.
So Acts 12 was not about coming across believers as disciples in Jesus Christ that received the Holy Spirit later on, because they were never believers in Jesus Christ to begin with for they were disciples of John the Baptist's.
Believers use Acts 12 a lot in error for saying that a believer can receive the Holy Spirit later on, but that was when those twelve disciples of John the Baptist's became believers in Jesus Christ to be water baptized in His name in seeking to be disciples in Jesus Christ. So I pray that God will help you see plainly what is written because to many believers will ignore the plain reading of the event to lay claim to that extra supernatural experience as being of the Lord when 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 says it is not. That is why the tongues that come with that second phenomenon never comes with interpretation because it is not really God's gift of tongues. And the odd thing here is how those that reach the second phenomenon, ignore how this supernatural "filling" is continual... as happening again and again and again..& so not of Him.
So believers need to return to their first love and chase no more after these seducing spirits because brother, you are filled... you are a new creature in Chris Jesus when you firs came & believed in Him and thus you are new wine bottles able to hold the new wine; the Holy Spirit. You are complete in Christ Jesus when you first came to & believed in Him as promised that you will never hunger nor thirst any more; hence always filled of the Holy Spirit to testify that you are saved.
That is why there is no other hope of our calling and no other baptism with the Holy Spirit so that we continue to preach the simplicity of the gospel since Jesus Christ is really the Good News to man so preach Jesus Christ & Him crucified only so that others may rest in Him and not be moved away from our faith in Him so as to be ready to go when the Bridegroom comes.
To not be drunk with wine is to remain filled with the Spirit of all the fruits thereof. It is not a call to seek the Holy Spirit to be filled again. That is just a call to be sober. Are those other verses that call to be sober include seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit again? No. Be filled with the Spirit means remain filled rather than sowing to the works of the flesh.
That was when the apostles had received the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost from the Father when Jesus was no longer with them as testified in John 14th chapter and that was when the apostles were saved and the church began at Pentecost.
Not the same thing nor the same meaning. If you left out that Paul was full of the Holy Ghost when he declared that Elymus would be blind, you would think that Paul had cursed Elymas or that it was his will that he be blind. It was not. As for Ananias coming to Paul, when Paul had received the Holy Ghost, that was when he was saved; and not before.
Romans 8:[SUP]9 [/SUP]But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I judged others as having been saved and are already filled to testify to the faith in Jesus Christ; to defend that faith. So when I judge the actions & words of those believers that have gone astray, then it is by those actions and words is how they have been determined as having gone astray from the faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul speaks in tongue, he is the one that is praying that someone else may interpret what he is saying in tongues as manifested by the Holy Spirit because it is unfruitful to him until someone does. That means tongues is not a stand alone gift in the assembly. That was his point for why he was exhorting believers in verse 1 that if they seek a spiritual gift, they were to seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts and he began to expound on that by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues because tongues is not a stand alone gift that it needs interpretation for the tongue speaker to understand.
The way you guys read it, you make it sound as if Paul failed royally in why prophesy should be sought over tongues as well as over other gifts of the Spirit as well because you are all favoring tongues over prophesy and by seeking to receive the Holy Spirit again on top of it.
You have yet to explain what 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 is all about before you consider it as a stone to dismiss.
No. You are not seeing in 1 Corinthians 14 of tongues being used in prayer when Paul said it was his spirit that was praying. And the point of John 16:13 is that the Holy Spirit cannot speak on His own or on His own initiative or authority because He can only speak what He hears. That limits Him from using tongues as a personal prayer language. It is by Christ knowing the mind of the Spirit ( Romans 8:27 ) is how the unspeakable & unutterable intercessions of the Spirit's ( Romans 8:26 ) are made known to God the Father by that only Mediator between God and men ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ).
The Spirit speaks what He hears and that can be uttered, but since He cannot speak on His own initiative, but speak what He hears, then His intercessions are unspeakable and unutterable an hence no sound which requires ANOTHER to know the mind of the Spirit to give His intercessions to the Father.
May God cause the increase.