Some truth about speaking in tongues, the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians 14

[KelbyofGod]

Now see this (My answer #2) makes no sense to me. In acts 2, Jesus told them they would receive the spirit, because no one could until he departed (He chose the day of Pentecost for a reason.) people did not ask for it. He just came, thats what happens when we ask God for salvation, The spirit comes, and he seals and resides. If you do not have the spirit, your not saved, You have not been baptized, You have not been anointed, you have not been sealed. Your still on the outside looking in.

I want to explore "people did not ask for it".

Jesus gave them a promise indeed, but little description of what exactly was going to happen (or when)... and He told them to stay in Jerusalem until they received it... then he left. Do you suppose the disciples did nothing? What would you be doing if Jesus left you a promise of something vastly important but you didn't know exactly what to expect, or when it would come, etc.? Would you just stand there doing nothing, or would you start praying and seeking God so you'd be ready?

Once you've internally answered those questions, also consider that on the day of Pentecost they were "all in one accord in one place". To me that means they all had their attentions and intentions on the same thing at the same time. I've never seen that happen if a group was just standing around talking and waiting for some promised event. I think there was some serious God-seeking going on in that upper room.

I somewhat desire to just stop there but there's another series of questions to consider when looking at the next part:

He just came, that's what happens when we ask God for salvation, The spirit comes, and he seals and resides.

In the 4 biblical accounts that state 'when' the individual or group actually received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4, 8:15-17, 10:44, and 19:6 )

A.) Was it given at the moment of belief?
B.) Were they asking for salvation at the time they received it?
C.) Were they able to claim they'd already received it just because they could point to a promise?
D.) Did they have to wait until it was actually poured out on them?

Again, those are not intended as battle questions, but I think the actual answers (not the church-approved answers) are very important. The way I see it, the answers are:

A) No. (Some assume it in Acts 10, but it's not stated. & Clearly 'No' in the other 3 cases)
B) No.
C) No.
D) Yes.

If you do not have the spirit, your not saved, You have not been baptized, You have not been anointed, you have not been sealed. Your still on the outside looking in.

Except for some wording in the part about baptism, I basically agree with this quote.

Thanks again for your postings and conversation.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've been in debate/battle mode before. And in all honesty, there are times when an uncompromising take-it-or-leave-it offer is the right thing to do. But often I would see some other person speak with kindness and love...and in those cases I'd realize I wasn't required to behave as I did...I'd just chosen to behave that way.

Been there done that myself. So I know what your saying !

It's usually easy to tell when a question is an attack rather than an honest answer. Your questions here are good ones. I similarly will answer honestly, not attackingly...and I hope you'll forgive me if I over-explain.

Oh no, your good. That is what discussion is. Two people giving views. Hopefully with open minds and a willingness to learn, even if in the end, we can not agree.

If we come in and expect t everyone to agree with us, and worse yet come wiht the attitude no one is gonna change my mind, We have lost the discussion before it is even started, and then also I must ask. WHy are we even here?

I'm going to start with the last one, where you asked me to elaborate about my statement of "we DON'T know"(what is being prayed).

The first thing you must remember throughout,... is that when we tongues-talkers refer to "speaking in tongues" we mean the kind that sounds like gibberish. (If I could get you to read that last part 5 times in a row, I would. It is a crucial component to understanding my earlier statement.) If that sounds stupid, fine, let it sound stupid. But understand that the moment you start talking about speech that other people can understand without additional miraculous intervention, then you've moved off to another topic....And yes, we can discuss Acts 2:6-12 later. I'm just talking about the unintelligible kind for right now.

Am I correct to assume you've observed, either in person or perhaps a [groan] Youtube video, of people talking in some unintelligible 'language'? If so, THAT's what I'm talking about. That kind of speaking. (Not their actions, flailings, dramatics, etc. Just the type of speaking they are doing). Sorry if I spent too much time hammering on that point.

So if you look back on our explanations to your question #3, it seems you were talking about a kind of language/prayer that can be understood by man. I was talking about a kind of language/prayer that cannot be understood by man...unless GOD provides interpretation. Is that a correct evaluation?

If you're with me so far, let me know and I'll explain further.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Here is my point

Scripture says we are to test ALL spirits to see if they are from God.

If something is “gibberish” as you say, and there is absolutely no way to verify it is from God, Then to me it is questionable.

When the HS prays for me, and all people, in my view. He prays in words unheard, or gibberish or unspoken, He has access to God, he does not need to use my voice to speak in a language I can not hear or understand in order for him to speak to God, remember, he is Omnipresent, at the same second, he is in the presence of God and in every child of God. It is hard for us to understand how this can be, But it is certain. So if there is no way to confirm it is from God I have to (it is my right as ordered by God himself to test all spirits) then I have to assume it is not from God. Because if it was, he would give some way to verify.

Not to mention. If God wanted to pray for me, and wanted me to know he has my back, He would speak in a language I can understand or at least, the “gibberish” would be understood, So that I can KNOW he had my back, and I could see what he prayed come true, otherwise what use is it?

When I am in a situation, and I am in trouble, The HS prays for me, in Hopes that I can either be protected, or God will help me in that situation, or at the very least, to help block or convince me to do something else. I do not need to know he is praying in this moment

If I am out doing a work he wishes me to do. He prays for me, That I have the courage to do it, That I have all the resources i need to accomplish it, And that I continue to push through even when things try to get in my way.

If God gives my church a mission or a group of us is going out to do somethign, the HS prays for each of us, the same prayers that are seen above

We do not need to hear these prayers, We can just have confidence that God has our backs, and knows what we need because chances are we do not know, and thus do not even know what to pray for in that particular situation.

We pray for each other, We pray the same prayers, except our prayers are probably lacking not knowing everythign we need. To me the HS does the same, Except deeper prayers because he knows what we need.


We both believe the HS prays for us, The difference is you think he does it is some form of as you say “vocal gibberish” where I believe he does it continually and behind the scenes.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I want to explore "people did not ask for it".

Jesus gave them a promise indeed, but little description of what exactly was going to happen (or when)... and He told them to stay in Jerusalem until they received it... then he left. Do you suppose the disciples did nothing? What would you be doing if Jesus left you a promise of something vastly important but you didn't know exactly what to expect, or when it would come, etc.? Would you just stand there doing nothing, or would you start praying and seeking God so you'd be ready?

They sat by waiting for the HS, They did not know what would happen once the HS came. And yes, I think they sat their and prayed, and probably got in the word.

The context I believe you are saying, is they stood there witing to speak in tongues, I do nto agree with that statement.

Once you've internally answered those questions, also consider that on the day of Pentecost they were "all in one accord in one place". To me that means they all had their attentions and intentions on the same thing at the same time. I've never seen that happen if a group was just standing around talking and waiting for some promised event. I think there was some serious God-seeking going on in that upper room.

Again, Whwere they waiting to speak in tongues, or waiting for the HS?

For all we know they were just there waiting for something, Remember, the things Jesus did in the power of the spirit they already had also done themselves (except for raising people from the dead) they had already cast out demons and healed people. So I would not want to try to assume what they were thinking

Also. When the spirit came, People came to them, And heard each of them speak in their own language, How do you interpret this?

Then peter spoke, what language did he speak in?

I somewhat desire to just stop there but there's another series of questions to consider when looking at the next part:
In the 4 biblical accounts that state 'when' the individual or group actually received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4, 8:15-17, 10:44, and 19:6 )

A.) Was it given at the moment of belief?
B.) Were they asking for salvation at the time they received it?
C.) Were they able to claim they'd already received it just because they could point to a promise?
D.) Did they have to wait until it was actually poured out on them?

Again, those are not intended as battle questions, but I think the actual answers (not the church-approved answers) are very important. The way I see it, the answers are:

A) No. (Some assume it in Acts 10, but it's not stated. & Clearly 'No' in the other 3 cases)
B) No.
C) No.
D) Yes.
Except for some wording in the part about baptism, I basically agree with this quote.

I have to disagree with A. Except for acts 2. Since those were the first to recieve it.

The other people recieved the spirit the moment they had faith, Acts 10 is clear. That it was the moment they believed they were saved and added to the church.


Again, After pentecost. If you do not have the HS, your not saved,,

As for baptism, I wqas speaking of baptism of the spirit or the baptism into christ, Not water baptism.

Thanks again for your postings and conversation.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Same back to you my friend, thanks fcor PEACEFULL conversation

 

[KelbyofGod]

They sat by waiting for the HS, They did not know what would happen once the HS came. [...]

The context I believe you are saying, is they stood there witing to speak in tongues, I do not agree with that statement.

Nope. Actually I don't think they were waiting for tongues. I think they had little idea what to expect. After several readings of Matthew-John, I still can't see where Jesus' words would cause anyone to conclude that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was going to include 'speaking in tongues' of any notable sort. Yet it did. (Mark 16 giving a rare clue). And this is the first attribute listed in each of the biblical accounts, if any observable attributes are specified. (In fact, it is the only attribute listed in Acts 2 before the group of onlookers gathered).

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

Acts 10:45-46 KJV
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:6 KJV
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Again, Were they waiting to speak in tongues, or waiting for the HS?

For all we know they were just there waiting for something, Remember, the things Jesus did in the power of the spirit they already had also done themselves (except for raising people from the dead) they had already cast out demons and healed people. So I would not want to try to assume what they were thinking

Again, I don't think they expected tongues.

Also. When the spirit came, People came to them, And heard each of them speak in their own language, How do you interpret this?

If we slow it down, we can see that these things did not happen simultaneously (as many assume).

First, the Holy Ghost came with tongues.
Acts 2:4 KJV
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Then word of this event spreads through the city.
Acts 2:6 KJV
"Now when this was noised abroad, ..."

Then a diverse group of onlookers gathers from all over the city (probably running).
Acts 2:6 KJV
"...the multitude came together, ..." (this would take some time)

And the group was confounded by what they were observing.
Acts 2:6 KJV
..."and were confounded, ..."

Yes, I left off the last part of verse 6, not for reasons of avoidance (I'd already volunteered to explain) but to be able to examine whether the group was there to hear the first 'speaking in tongues' occur... or if they gathered later because of it. I understand it to mean that they gathered after the fact, and because of it. How do you see it?

Then peter spoke, what language did he speak in?

I assume Greek(?) Whichever language they naturally used at the time in that area.

I have to disagree with A. Except for acts 2. Since those were the first to receive it.

The other people received the spirit the moment they had faith, Acts 10 is clear. That it was the moment they believed they were saved and added to the church.

I agree that in Acts 2, the disciples were already believers. So this first group had to wait. Let's see if any others had to wait.

Acts 10 doesn't specify at which time the group believed...it just specifies at what time they received the Holy Ghost, and how the onlookers knew.

Acts 19 does not state belief as the time of receiving the holy ghost (for this group) but at time of laying on of hands. I'm going to guess that neither you nor I is going to suggest that belief comes by laying on of hands. So there was probably a separation here, too.

Acts 8 is more specific, clarifying the group's belief in verse 12...
Acts 8:12 KJV
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, ...

their baptism (also in verse 12)
Acts 8:12 KJV
"...they were baptized, both men and women."

That they had indeed received the word of God (verse14):
Acts 8:14 KJV
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

But still had NOT received the Holy Ghost 15-16:
Acts 8:15-16 KJV
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: [16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Then they finally receive the Holy Ghost in verse 17:
Acts 8:17 KJV
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Which outpouring was again observable by onlookers (v.18)
Acts 8:18 KJV
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Yes, I know the idea that there ever is (or even can be) a separation between time of belief and time of receiving the Holy Ghost is in direct contradiction to a belief many currently hold.

Again, After Pentecost. If you do not have the HS, your not saved,,

As for baptism, I was speaking of baptism of the spirit or the baptism into christ, Not water baptism.

I kind of assumed that's what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Nope. Actually I don't think they were waiting for tongues. I think they had little idea what to expect. After several readings of Matthew-John, I still can't see where Jesus' words would cause anyone to conclude that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was going to include 'speaking in tongues' of any notable sort. (Mark 16 giving a rare clue). Yet this is the first attribute listed in each of the biblical accounts, if any observable attributes are specified. (In fact, it is the only attribute listed in Acts 2 before the group of onlookers gathered).

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

Acts 10:45-46 KJV
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:6 KJV
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Again, I don't think they expected tongues.

Those are three examples.

1. In acts 2. It was done as a sign to Isreal (prophesied in the OT I believe)
2. In acts 10, It was a sign to peter who still struggled to believe the gentiles could get this spirit also (As he said later, who was he that he could withstand God)
3. In acts 19, It again could just be a sign

To use these examples to make a doctrine, I am not confortable with that. Otherwise everyone who ever came to christ would immediately start prophesying and speaking in tongues, like these people are, this is just not so.

If we slow it down, we can see that these things did not happen simultaneously (as many assume).

First, the Holy Ghost came with tongues.
Acts 2:4 KJV
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Then word of this event spreads through the city.
Acts 2:6 KJV
"Now when this was noised abroad, ..."

Then a diverse group of onlookers gathers from all over the city (probably running).
Acts 2:6 KJV
"...the multitude came together, ..." (this would take some time)

And the group was confounded by what they were observing.
Acts 2:6 KJV
..."and were confounded, ..."

Yes, I left off the last part of verse 6, not for reasons of avoidance (I'd already volunteered to explain) but to be able to examine whether the group was there to hear the first 'speaking in tongues' occur... or if they gathered later because of it. I understand it to mean that they gathered after the fact, and because of it. How do you see it?

I see like with many things,, Something odd or strange is going on, So the word gets out. COme see what is going on here (God used this to draw this crouwd is my view, and then also used it as a sign that these men were from God)

Then as these people came, they could hear the disciples speaking about the things of God in their own native language. Even though they probably possibly spoke hebrew or aramaci, But most likely koine greek, they each heard in their own NATIVE language what was being said.

This got many to wonder, and caused some others to mock and laugh saying they were drunk (maybe they could not hear anyone speak in their language? Or they were confused as to HOW they spoke in these languages, so thought them drunk)

This opened the door for peter to give his gospel message, and 3000 plus came to christ that day.

The sign (speaking in foriegn languages) was used to draw people, and then the gospel was given and people came to christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

....

formatting was messed up in the rest of your post. I tried to cut and past to see if I can get it..


Here goes..lol

assume Greek(?) Whichever language they naturally used at the time in that area.

I would agree...

I agree that in Acts 2, the disciples were already believers. So this first group had to wait. Let's see if any others had to wait.

Acts 10 doesn't specify at which time the group believed...it just specifies at what time they received the Holy Ghost, and how the onlookers knew.

Lets see. Peter gave them the gospel. And then they were baptised by the spirit. So yeah, They were baptised into christ the moment they believed

Acts 19 does not state belief as the time of receiving the holy ghost (for this group) but at time of laying on of hands. I'm going to guess that neither you nor I is going to suggest that belief comes by laying on of hands. So there was probably a separation here, too.

A sign, I am not going to use what happened in this one instance as proof that something else happened.

Acts 8 is more specific, clarifying the group's belief in verse 12...
Acts 8:12 KJV
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, ...

their baptism (also in verse 12)
Acts 8:12 KJV
"...they were baptized, both men and women."

That they had indeed received the word of God (verse14):
Acts 8:14 KJV
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

But still had NOT received the Holy Ghost 15-16:
Acts 8:15-16 KJV
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: [16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Then they finally receive the Holy Ghost in verse 17:
Acts 8:17 KJV
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Which outpouring was again observable by onlookers (v.18)
Acts 8:18 KJV
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Yes, I know the idea that there ever is (or even can be) a separation between time of belief and time of receiving the Holy Ghost is in direct contradiction to a belief many currently hold.

Ok I will grant you this, But again, A sign, Christianity was a new thing going into the world. Usually when things like this happens. Many signs or wonders follow as proof that these things come from God.

I am not going to use this to prove the norm.

eternally-gratefull said:
Again, After Pentecost. If you do not have the HS, your not saved,,

As for baptism, I was speaking of baptism of the spirit or the baptism into christ, Not water baptism.
I kind of assumed that's what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Can I ask you a few questions?

Rom 6, is this baptism of water?
1 cor 12, is this baptism in water?
Gal 3, is this baptism of water
Col 2, is this baptism of water?

 

[KelbyofGod]

And heard each of them speak in their own language, How do you interpret this?

Oops. In rereading my reply I guess I do need to explain this part now.

When the Holy Ghost is given, there is nothing limiting the number of additional gifts that can be given at the same time (or later). In fact there is a suggestion of plural gifts being given to each.

Acts 2:17 KJV
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (...etc.)

1 Corinthians 12:11 KJV
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

"he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" - Ephesians 4:8 KJV

There are 2 things I'd like to highlight:
1. Besides 'babbly-tongues' there is an additional gift called 'diversities of tongues' or 'diverse tongues' which is the ability to speak various natural languages by unction of the Holy Ghost.

2. You should consider (and I encourage 'pray about') the difference between a "gift" and a "promise". (for later discussion)

On the day of Pentecost, they initially started speaking in tongues. I would suggest the 'babbly kind...(not unto men, but unto God), yet observable by man. Then, when the group gathered together, God caused the words of the speakers to rotate through the languages of the onlookers (diversities of tongues), allowing the onlookers to "hear them speak in our tongues(languages)"

Feel free to run that explanation through the events of that day to see if it fits.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

Can I ask you a few questions?

Rom 6, is this baptism of water?
1 cor 12, is this baptism in water?
Gal 3, is this baptism of water
Col 2, is this baptism of water?

I'll get to these questions (I love your questions) probably after midnight, as I work 2nd shift again today.

Just as an FYI, I didn't disregard your post to say what I wanted instead. I immediately started typing the addition to my first post and it just took me that long. Have a great day.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oops. In rereading my reply I guess I do need to explain this part now.

When the Holy Ghost is given, there is nothing limiting the number of additional gifts that can be given at the same time (or later). In fact there is a suggestion of plural gifts being given to each.

In acts 2, I agree (2 gifts were seen at this timeP, Later on after the church was established, I think even paul said, he gave gifts as needed..

Acts 2:17 KJV
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (...etc.)

Yes as I said, the OT prophesied of these events,

1 Corinthians 12:11 KJV
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

"he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" - Ephesians 4:8 KJV

This one just says he gives gifts unto men, Mind if I ask what version you use, Mine says to each man induvidually as he will.

The greek word is singular in form, It means his own, belonging to ones own self. Etc etc.. not sure where they got the word SEVERALLY as in pl;ural..

There are 2 things I'd like to highlight:
1. Besides 'babbly-tongues' there is an additional gift called 'diversities of tongues' or 'diverse tongues' which is the ability to speak various natural languages by unction of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, The people in acts spoke various tongues, different languages that people understood.

2. You should consider (and I encourage 'pray about') the difference between a "gift" and a "promise". (for later discussion)

God promised many things, But I will try to see what you mean then?

On the day of Pentecost, they initially started speaking in tongues. I would suggest the 'babbly kind...(not unto men, but unto God), yet observable by man.

This is not found anyplace in the text. It says they heard them speak in their own native language. I can not try to put into a tezt what is said without it explicily saying that.

Then, when the group gathered together, God caused the words of the speakers to rotate through the languages of the onlookers (diversities of tongues), allowing the onlookers to "hear them speak in our tongues(languages)"

Feel free to run that explanation through the events of that day to see if it fits.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Again, I do not see this in the text. I woul have to add to the text something that is not there.

I try my best not to do this, i think this is how people get into trouble. I hope you can see why I would think this. With any doctrine, not just wt this one.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'll get to these questions (I love your questions) probably after midnight, as I work 2nd shift again today.

Just as an FYI, I didn't disregard your post to say what I wanted instead. I immediately started typing the addition to my first post and it just took me that long. Have a great day.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Its all good bro, hope your day goes well!

 

[Absolutely]

I think I get what you're trying to say. So the only time I've seen in church people interpret what the Holy Spirit is speaking its usually during prophesy.

Have you heard in church when the person speaks louder than anyone else without a microphone? Usually they start out speaking in tounges loudly then God begins to speak through them. Thats been my experience of this interpretation of tounges. But I always distinguished it as prophesying. And its usually a church member and not the pastor. Moved by the Holy Spirit.

But I get what you're saying. I don't think anyone preaches in this form because that's not what it is intended for. Speaking in tounges only edifies the person speaking in tounges. The cloven tounge as shown in pentecost was able to speak in another persons language. You wouldn't need an interpreter for the cloven tounge because the person would understand it in their language. Im sure it wouldn't be an entire sermon in cloven tounge but enough for the person to know it was God speaking.

The cessationist says " there must be an interpreter"
If i am preaching in that person's language,why the interpreter

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The cessationist says " there must be an interpreter"
If i am preaching in that person's language,why the interpreter

The one you spoke to is the interpretor. Because to you it is an unknown language.

 

[notuptome]

The cessationist says " there must be an interpreter"
If i am preaching in that person's language,why the interpreter

The bible says there is to be an interpreter so that all might be edified.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The bible says there is to be an interpreter so that all might be edified.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And verified it came from God, not some other entity

 

[KelbyofGod]

Can I ask you a few questions?

Rom 6, is this baptism of water?
1 cor 12, is this baptism in water?
Gal 3, is this baptism of water
Col 2, is this baptism of water?

I'm glad you asked these particular questions because a few weeks/months ago God brought this topic to my attention and sparked some questions in my heart concerning it. As I asked them, he explained the answers in a way that I'd formerly not understood. I tried a few times to summarize the questions & answers but it either got way too lengthy, or lacked necessary details. So I deleted that and decided just to give my simplest answers then do my best to explain the 'why' afterwards. Here goes:

Romans 6: 3-5 = Water
1 Corinthians 12:13 = Spirit
Galatians 3:27 = Spirit
Colossians 2:12 = Water

I'll even give my answer concerning a bonus, unasked verse:

Ephesians 4:5 = I didn't have a clue... until actually looking up the verse this time (first time after what I'd recently learned). Now I think I understand, but first let me start on the 'Why' I gave the answers to the first 4.

My questions to God revolved around the fact that I see two baptisms (1=Water 2=Spirit) and hadn't forgotten Ephesians 4:5. Also, I'd seen verses that mention a 'baptism' (like those you asked about) which don't specify which baptism they are talking about. (Some mention baptism in regards to death, some in regards to life.) Then I'd clearly remember Ephesians 4:5 and considered that some believe there is only one baptism (that matters)...Spirit baptism (because that's what Jesus does personally). I'm certainly not going to downplay the importance of Spirit baptism. And I likewise don't want to discount water baptism because it, too, was set up by God. I was unable to reconcile all these details on my own. So eventually I ASKED. lol ( James 4:2 "...you have not because you ask not.")

In simplest terms. There are two distinct (and different) types of baptism because there are two distinct (and different) things to be accomplished. I'll state the need several ways, numbering each in #1, #2 form:

1. There is a need to be joined into Jesus' death.
2. There is a need to be joined into Jesus' life.

1. There is a need to put off the old man.
2. There is a need to put on the new man.

1. There is a need to be born of water.
2. There is a need to be born of the spirit.

1. There is a need to wash away our sins.
2. There is a need to receive the Holy Ghost.

So, what God showed me when I asked him to reconcile these facts was this:

There is a baptism that accomplishes the #1 items (Water baptism)
There is a baptism that accomplishes the #2 items (Spirit baptism)

So if you review the list of verses you gave me, it's easier to see which ones are describing a baptism dealing with Death, as compared to those describing a baptism dealing with Life.

Once you have some time to start digesting this concept, feel free to ask more about Ephesians 4. But do take some time to consider the reality of what is posted here. (Ephesians 4 actually explains this concept even further, but one of my mistakes was that I was internally quoting verse 5 as if it was a stand-alone concept instead of part of a sentence.) I prefer not to jump to the single, harder-to-explain instance before establishing the validity (or at least potential validity) of the answer to the multiple easier-to-explain instances.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[garee]

Oops. In rereading my reply I guess I do need to explain this part now.

When the Holy Ghost is given, there is nothing limiting the number of additional gifts that can be given at the same time (or later). In fact there is a suggestion of plural gifts being given to each.

Acts 2:17 KJV
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (...etc.)

Spiritual gifts are given..... not signs. No sign gifts to those who walk by faith.

Signs are designed for those who believe not those who rebel against the word of God. . prophecy for those who do believe as a anchor to their new souls.

The word of God is the interpretation of God .Is his interpretation limited to it as it is written? If so why would we think we need a man to teach us his own private interpretation as a oral tradition of men?

When Acts 2:17 did come to passs. What did it confirm in respect to the foundation of the doctrine (Isaiah 2) God mocking with Stammering lips those who refuse to hear the mocking of Him ?

Did the sign represent those who did believe prophecy as a anchor to their new souls or those who did not believe prophecy and therefore no belief in God not seen ?

Once the foundation and law is determened then the rest of doctrine becomes easier to understand. First things first.

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 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.1 Corinthians 14:21-22

 

[KelbyofGod]

The bible says there is to be an interpreter so that all might be edified.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

If by speaking in tongues you are intending to convey a message unto MAN, there is need of an interpreter. If you are speaking in tongues because you are intending to convey a message unto GOD, there is no need of an interpreter because God already understands what's being said.... (unless you'd like to consider God the interpreter...in which case, yes there's already an interpreter present).

It is important to consider to WHOM you are speaking in tongues.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

Spiritual gifts are given..... not signs. No sign gifts to those who walk by faith.

You run into a serious problem by making those statements. Prophecy is both a sign and a gift... it is both given to and serves those that believe.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[garee]

I'm glad you asked these particular questions because a few weeks/months ago God brought this topic to my attention and sparked some questions in my heart concerning it. As I asked them, he explained the answers in a way that I'd formerly not understood. I tried a few times to summarize the questions & answers but it either got way too lengthy, or lacked necessary details. So I deleted that and decided just to give my simplest answers then do my best to explain the 'why' afterwards. Here goes:

Romans 6: 3-5 = Water
1 Corinthians 12:13 = Spirit
Galatians 3:27 = Spirit
Colossians 2:12 = Water

Water seen the temporal without fail represents the eternal not seen . Never do the two become one. We do not know Christ after any rudiment of this corrupted creation. We walk by faith. The unseen eternal. What we are is not what we will be. What kind of flesh next time no one knows we do know it will not corrupt . We do know it will not be flesh and blood type. It could never enter the new.

Our heavenly Optiomologist gives us his 20/ 20 prescription.

2 Corinthians 4:18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[garee]

You run into a serious problem by making those statements. Prophecy is both a sign and a gift... it is both given to and serves those that believe.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

A sign and gift that confirms what? Unbelief? It cannot be a outward sign that confirm both belief and no faith. Which master, the things seen or that not seen, faith ?