Have You Received the Holy Ghost Since You Believed?

[KelbyofGod]

Looks like you have different understanding of what "signs for unbelievers" means then.

I suspect you are forced to conclude as such, because you already begun with the axiom "There are 2 types of tongues, one of which is a heavenly language", and you consider that as unquestionable.

Since you are absolutely certain that is true, when you try to understand what Paul was trying to say in 1 Cor 14:22, even when vs 21 placed that in the context of unbelieving Israel hearing the Assyrian language, which they did not understand, you end up concluding that heavenly languages can also serve as signs to unbelievers.

I think you try to apply the word Axiom too hard. or at least you seem to mean something much stronger than my current understanding of it's meaning.

I believe one thing. You believe something different. does that mean we both have axioms? I guess I'd better look up what the word actually means.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

@Guojing
After looking it up, I think the word Axiom does not apply to anything I've said so far. The words "supposition, Hypothosis, theory, or postulate" might, but Axiom seems to imply a level of belief that the person is incapable of questioning.

I don't even consider my faith in God to be that fanatically resolute... and I've heard him SPEAK.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

@Guojing
After looking it up, I think the word Axiom does not apply to anything I've said so far. The words "supposition, Hypothosis, theory, or postulate" might, but Axiom seems to imply a level of belief that the person is incapable of questioning.

I don't even consider my faith in God to be that fanatically resolute... and I've heard him SPEAK.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

So your starting point "There are 2 different types of tongues", guides how you interpret events like Acts 2:4-6, where you believe there is a switch from the one type in vs 4, to another type in vs 6.

You are the first I have encountered who actually think vs 4 and vs 6 refers to different types of tongues.

 

[KelbyofGod]

So your starting point "There are 2 different types of tongues", guides how you interpret events like Acts 2:4-6, where you believe there is a switch from the one type in vs 4, to another type in vs 6.

You are the first I have encountered who actually think vs 4 and vs 6 refers to different types of tongues.

Oh, I'm sure you've run into others that believe it. But it doesn't surprise me that not many have said it.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

@Guojing
After looking it up, I think the word Axiom does not apply to anything I've said so far. The words "supposition, Hypothosis, theory, or postulate" might, but Axiom seems to imply a level of belief that the person is incapable of questioning.

I don't even consider my faith in God to be that fanatically resolute... and I've heard him SPEAK.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

And when you encounter a passage like 1 Cor 14:21-22

21 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.

22 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.

Even though vs 21 was from Isaiah 28:11, where the context is unbelieving Israel being exiled into Assyria and hearing the Assyian language, due to your starting point of "There are 2 different types of tongues", it made you conclude that vs 22 tongues also referred to heavenly languages.

You can see how that starting point of yours basically governs how you interpret all the other bible passages regarding tongues?

I noted you have yet to explain how you understand vs 21. Was it the Assyrian language that the exiled Jews heard, or the heavenly languages?

 

[KelbyofGod]

So your starting point "There are 2 different types of tongues", guides how you interpret events like Acts 2:4-6, where you believe there is a switch from the one type in vs 4, to another type in vs 6.

And technically it's the fact that I've received "speaking in tongues" that gives me some authority to speak on the subject as if I know how it functions. From what I understand, you are claiming to have functional knowledge of something you've never experienced.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

And technically it's the fact that I've received "speaking in tongues" that gives me some authority to speak on the subject as if I know how it functions. From what I understand, you are claiming to have functional knowledge of something you've never experienced.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

For me, I try to read Scripture and understand its literal meaning, as far as possible, taking context into account.

I don't seek after experience.

 

[wolfwint]

Oh, I'm sure you've run into others that believe it. But it doesn't surprise me that not many have said it.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

The thing is, that acts 2,6 relays on acts 2,4.
(The people react in vers 6, on that what was heared in vers 4)
So to claime that these are different events is pure speculation and putting in the Text what is not standig there. Only your expierience will not hold as proof, if the word of God is not supporting it.

 

[KelbyofGod]

For me, I try to read Scripture and understand its literal meaning, as far as possible, taking context into account.

I don't seek after experience.

I was getting bogged down in the length of answer to the wording of post425 so I'm scrapping it for now to answer this one because it seems much more from the heart rather than intellectual side of things. and I needed a break.

I'm kind of intellectual by nature so I see the value of your approach. That's close to the method I used at first. But I ran into the need for the God who is present (and helpful) in time of need. So experience became a necessary element.

I think that some people (who in my opinion TOO strongly favor the intellectual approach) don't appreciate Acts because it's messy and doesn't fit nicely into boxes. However, people who are going through turmoil appreciate the book of Acts because it provides examples of what God will do, and encourages them to ask God to do similarly for them.

If Acts has any value, God ought to honor it today. And my experience is that when we get really serious with God, he does the same things today. One of our pastors used to say "Once you get a few real experiences with God, you won't quickly lose your faith". I found that to be a true statement.

And this is back to that idea of getting some group to verify something. The group arguing about the verifications is usually not the group getting things done.

And in all honesty, if you sought God until you learned to hear his voice, you could start asking him what a lot of these things mean and why on earth I keep telling you they mean almost opposite of what it looks like they mean,,,and he'd explain them to you. Honest.

And Yes, I'll tell you that 1 Corinthians 14:21 & 22 are talking about the babbly, heavenly kind even though you think it can't be.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

The thing is, that acts 2,6 relays on acts 2,4.
(The people react in vers 6, on that what was heared in vers 4)
So to claime that these are different events is pure speculation and putting in the Text what is not standig there. Only your expierience will not hold as proof, if the word of God is not supporting it.

Hi wolfwint. It's nearly 4am here and I'm tired and perhaps a bit "plucky" so I may not put up with as many of your tactics as you'd like. But I'll answer this one.

In verses 1-4 there was one group gathered together in one place in one accord and something happened. In verse 5 it starts talking about another group who (in verse 6) hear news of what was happening to the first group and (in verse 6) gather together and begin to be part of the overall goings on.

It's not surprising to me that once new parties entered the scene, God provided something for their benefit as well.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

And Yes, I'll tell you that 1 Corinthians 14:21 & 22 are talking about the babbly, heavenly kind even though you think it can't be.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Let's focus on this then. Why do you think those 2 verses are referring to heavenly tongues?

When Israel rejected God's covenant of the Law, and made fun of the prophet Isaiah who was sent to warn them in Isaiah 28. In judgement, God caused the northern kingdom of Israel to fall to the Assyrians.

So when vs 21 is mentioned, is it more likely, based on the context of Isa 28, that it refers to the Assyrian language, instead of heavenly languages?

If you claim its the latter, would you care to explain how you reason that?

The cross reference can be found in Jeremiah 5:15
15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

 

[Guojing]

Other cross references to Isa 28:11, and 1 Cor 14:21 include

Deuteronomy 28:49
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand,

Isaiah 33:19
You will see no more the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech that you cannot comprehend, stammering in a tongue that you cannot understand.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Let's focus on this then. Why do you think those 2 verses are referring to heavenly tongues?

When Israel rejected God's covenant of the Law, and made fun of the prophet Isaiah who was sent to warn them in Isaiah 28. In judgement, God caused the northern kingdom of Israel to fall to the Assyrians.

So when vs 21 is mentioned, is it more likely, based on the context of Isa 28, that it refers to the Assyrian language, instead of heavenly languages?

If you claim its the latter, would you care to explain how you reason that?

The cross reference can be found in Jeremiah 5:15
15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Often it seems most productive to answer your posts starting with the last statement. Are you really thinking that the tongues in Acts were the Assyrian language? (based on your understanding of Isaiah 28:11) Because Hey, if it was talking specifically about the Assyrian language at first mention, then "the law of first mention" means it must be talking about the Assyrian language forever." (said in pretend suggestion of believability)

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

@Guojing
My apologies to you my friend, but it's past 4am and my eyes are trying to close. I must go even though I have truly enjoyed our conversation. Rest well and I still wish you well on your journey.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

Often it seems most productive to answer your posts starting with the last statement. Are you really thinking that the tongues in Acts were the Assyrian language? (based on your understanding of Isaiah 28:11) Because Hey, if it was talking specifically about the Assyrian language at first mention, then "the law of first mention" means it must be talking about the Assyrian language forever." (said in pretend suggestion of believability)

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Obviously I am not, since I already quoted to you Acts 2:6-11 so many times to you already. That is what I mean by "clear" scripture.

I am saying tongues in the OT, in Acts 2, and Acts 10 are known foreign languages.

When it comes to 1 Cor 14, tongues mentioned by Paul in vs 21-22 are again, based on context in Isa 28:11, refers to known foreign languages.

There may be other verses in 1 Cor 14 that could be used to form a doctrine that it refers to heavenly languages. But when you allow clear scripture to guide your interpretation of unclear ones, you have to conclude that one needs to read into scripture to try to form a doctrine of "2 types of tongues, known foreign languages, and heavenly languages."

 

[wolfwint]

Hi wolfwint. It's nearly 4am here and I'm tired and perhaps a bit "plucky" so I may not put up with as many of your tactics as you'd like. But I'll answer this one.

In verses 1-4 there was one group gathered together in one place in one accord and something happened. In verse 5 it starts talking about another group who (in verse 6) hear news of what was happening to the first group and (in verse 6) gather together and begin to be part of the overall goings on.

It's not surprising to me that once new parties entered the scene, God provided something for their benefit as well.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Well, I hope you had a good rest.
Other tongues, in acts 2,4 are spoken languages and they are the same the people heared in acts 2,6.( If you read the greec text.) What you are doing is called eisegese.
What you mean with tactics?
If someone claimes what is not taught in the bible, you must not wonder if others questioning it.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

One must receive the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. Not the other way around.

So you saying the Holy Spirit is the Father? If I understand it right, the Holy Spirit is the third personage of the trinity, not the first.

Since a person must ask the Father for the Holy Spirit then how does someone come to the Father when it is written that no man come to the Father except but by Jesus.

Clearly one must be saved before Jesus would lead them to the Father because it is written that God does not hear sinners, so how could a sinner to ask the Father for the Holy Spirit without first coming to Jesus?

Consider what Jesus told Nicodemus, just as the wind, the Holy Ghost/Spirit cannot be seen but it can be heard:
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8

To begin with the wind doesn't blow where ever it wants.

This is known because the seasonal wind currents that move in specific directions at different places on the earth during specific times of the year. If the wind moved where ever it wanted then it would not repeat the same pattern year after year.

Then again, people like Nicodemus also believe that they could hear the sound of the wind. However the pneuma is the force that moves the air molecules and it is the moving air molecules that produces the audible sound that is heard.

So who isn't born of the Spirit? It is written that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and the flesh without the spirit is dead.

 

[Wansvic]

the problem with toungs is that they are so abused today

Sadly true. The enemy urges counterfeits of God's true concepts in order to steer people away from receiving truth.

Once God pours His Spirit into a person and their prayer language begins to flow there is no way someone can convince the born again believer of the reality of what occurred. Seeking God for the answer, to whether all must receive it, is the answer.

 

[Wansvic]

So you saying the Holy Spirit is the Father? If I understand it right, the Holy Spirit is the third personage of the trinity, not the first.

Since a person must ask the Father for the Holy Spirit then how does someone come to the Father when it is written that no man come to the Father except but by Jesus.

Clearly one must be saved before Jesus would lead them to the Father because it is written that God does not hear sinners, so how could a sinner to ask the Father for the Holy Spirit without first coming to Jesus?

1. Jesus was conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. (Luke 1:35) Since Jesus is the son of God it is clear whose Spirit overshadowed Jesus' mother.

2. It is not always necessary for a person to ask the Father for the Spirit. Sometimes people receive God's Spirit spontaneously, or when another person intervenes in prayer. However, asking for the Spirit without first accepting Jesus' death, burial and resurrection is mute. One's pursuit of the rebirth experience is the natural next step and entails obedience to the command to repent, be water baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sin and receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19)

3. It is my understanding that God responds to sinner's if their prayer is one of repentance. (John 9:31) Hearing about and accepting Jesus' death, burial and resurrection as the means for mankind's forgiveness prompts repentance. This is the first step all take in their journey with God.

To begin with the wind doesn't blow where ever it wants.

This is known because the seasonal wind currents that move in specific directions at different places on the earth during specific times of the year. If the wind moved where ever it wanted then it would not repeat the same pattern year after year.

Then again, people like Nicodemus also believe that they could hear the sound of the wind. However the pneuma is the force that moves the air molecules and it is the moving air molecules that produces the audible sound that is heard.

So who isn't born of the Spirit? It is written that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and the flesh without the spirit is dead.

Your objections would have to be brought up with Jesus since it was He who made the following statement recorded in the word:

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8

 

[wolfwint]

Sadly true. The enemy urges counterfeits of God's true concepts in order to steer people away from receiving truth.

Once God pours His Spirit into a person and their prayer language begins to flow there is no way someone can convince the born again believer of the reality of what occurred. Seeking God for the answer, to whether all must receive it, is the answer.

The truth is, that even in the Apostles time not all believer got the gift of speaking in tongues. Nor was it taught that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone got the Holy Spirit.