Speaking in tongues

I think it was you that said tongues is not prophecy?

Even in 1. Cor. 12,13 and 14 you cant find this doctrine with the Holy Spirit given as empowering and the sign for that is speaking in tongues. Why the christians Continue in the church history Has not this enlightning? Instead many cults came up, like the montanism.

I was not talking about God who uses people through his Holy Spirit in certain situations. I was talking about that baptising with the Holy Spirit as second expierience. Nor Luther, nor Calvin ore Zwingli taught that.
This doctrine came up with the pentecostal movement in 1901. Which reasons are orherwise there that this date is seen as the beginning of the pentecostal movement? And it is interesting that at the same date pope Leo xiii dedicatet the new century to the Holy Spirit.
And it is really questioning that the gift of speaking in tongues is, so far know always taught as a result for the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but not as normal given gift, like othe

Look in the book of Acts. In chapter 8, the Samaritans believed and were baptized. In Acts 19, about 12 men who had previously been baptized with the baptism of John accepted the gospel and were baptized. But the Holy Spirit did not come upon them immediately. That occurred after Paul laid hands on them. In both there was time between new believers believing the gospel and being baptized with water and the time the Spirit came/fell upon them. In Acts 8, it said they had not yet received the Spirit. Would you say these believers were unsaved before the apostles came to visit them?

what were you talking about? first, you said " No, there was non-group before 1901 which taught that. in context to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. That teaching was done in the Word of God and recorded in Acts. In addition, the word "charisms" and the early church fathers taught of this to be associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spirit empowerment. it was you said this was not taught before 1901 you sir are incorrect.

Joel 2 which Peter quoted in Acts

The Gospel of John chapter 1
mark 16
Luke 24:49
Acts 1: We see this happen in the book Acts many times (please read all Acts)

all said and done and taught before 1901. If the Word of god is not enough for you then how about the early church father's?

you will need to learn some Greek & Latin to help you understand the teaching they were given in context to the Holy Spirit.

Water Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers


Tertullian
Polycarp
Hermas
Irenaeus
Origen
I Clemens
Justin

all and many more taught the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or Holy Spirit empowerment and all before thr 1900's
I will leave you with some of t my ref:

References

Adam, A., 1970, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte: I. Die Zeit der Alten Kirche, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, Gütersloh. [ Links ]

Augustinus, 1969, Sancti Avrelii Avgustini Enchiridion ad Lavrentium de fide et spe et caritate, cvra et stvdio E. Evans, pp. 21-114, CCL 46, Brepols, Turnhout. [ Links ]

Augustinus, 1968, Sancti Avrelii Avgustini De Trinitate. Libri I-XII; XIII-XV, cvra et stvdio W.J. Mountain et F. Glorie, CCL 50 + 50A, Brepols, Turnhout. [ Links ]

Barbel, J., 1958, 'Zur "Engel-Trinitäts-Lehre" im Urchristentum', Theologische Revue 54, 49-58. [ Links ]

Barbel, J., 1961, Christos Angelos: Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des Arianismus, Hanstein, Bonn. [ Links ]

Basilius, 1947, De Spiritu sancto: Basile de Césarée, Traité du Saint-Esprit. Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes de Benoit Pruche (SC 17), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Bender, W., 1961, Die Lehre úber den Heiligen Geist bei Tertullian, Húber, Múnchen. [ Links ]

Berkhof, H., 1965, De leer van de Heilige Geest, Callenbach, Nijkerk. [ Links ]

Berkhof, H., 1973, Christelijk geloof: Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer, Callenbach, Nijkerk. [ Links ]

Berkhof, H., 2007, Christelijk Geloof Kok, Kampen. [ Links ]

Briggman, A., 2009, 'Measuring Justin's Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and Binitarian Orientation', Vigiliae Christianae 63, 107-137. [ Links ]

Briggman, A., 2010, 'Re-evaluating Angelomorphism in Irenaeus: The Case of Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 10', Journal of TheologicalStudies 61, 583-595. [ Links ]

Bucur, B.G., 2007, 'Revisiting Christian Oeyen: "The Other Clement" on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit', Vigiliae Christianae 61, 381-413. [ Links ]

Bucur, B.G., 2009, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses, Brill, Leiden & Boston. [ Links ]

Crouzel, H., 1976, Geist (Heiliger Geist): Váterzeit. Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, Band IX, 510-545. [ Links ]

Daniélou, J., 1957, 'Trinité et Angélologie dans la théologie judéo-chrétienne', Recherches de science religieuse 45, 5-41 [ Links ]

Daniélou, J., 1958, Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme, Desclée De Brouwer, Tournai. [ Links ]

De Boer, S., 1963-1964, 'Basilius de Grote en de homoousie van de Heilige Geest', Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 18, 362-380. [ Links ]

De Boer, S., 1969-1970, 'Paradosis, dogma en kerugma naar de opvatting van Basilius de Grote', Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 24, 363-372. [ Links ]

Dodd, C.H., 1936/1980, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. (Repr. 1936, Hodder & Stoughton, London. [ Links ])

Dörries, H., 1956, De Spiritu Sancto: Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des trinitarischen Dogmas,Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen. [ Links ]

Dörries, H., 1966, 'Basilius und das Dogma vom Heiligen Geist', in H. Dörries (Hrsg.), Wort und Stunde: I. Gesammelte Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, pp. 118-144, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen. [ Links ]

Dünzl, F., 2007, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, Continuum, London & New York. [ Links ]

Ferguson, E., 2009, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries,Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge. [ Links ]

Fossum, J.E., 1985, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, Mohr, Tübingen. [ Links ]

Gross, K., 1969, 'Finger', Reallexikon fúr Antike und Christentum VII, 909-946. [ Links ]

Hill, E., 1991/2007, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century: The Trinity (De Trinitate),introduction, translation and notes by Edmund Hill, Hydepark, New City Pess, New York. [ Links ]

Holmes, W., 2007, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edn., ed. & transl. Michael W. Holmes, after the earlier work of J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1920, St Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, translated from the Armenian with Introduction and Notes by Armitage Robinson, SPCK & MacMillan, London & New York. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1952, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre III, Texte Latin, fragments Grecs, Introduction, traduction et notes de F. Sagnard (SC 34), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1956, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre IV, Édition critique sous la direction de Adelin Rousseau, Tome I + II (SC 100), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1969, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre V, Édition critique par Adelin Rousseau, Louis Doutreleau, Charles Mercier, Tome I + II (SC 152-153), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1974, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre III, Édition critique par Adelin Rousseau et Louis Doutreleau, Tome I + II (SC 210-211), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1979, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre I, Édition critique par Adelin Rousseau et Louis Doutreleau, Tome I + II (SC 263-264), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Irenaeus, 1982, Against Heresies: Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies, Livre II, Édition critique par Adelin Rousseau et Louis Doutreleau, Tome I + II (SC 293-294), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

20.There is also a Greek version. The oldest text was probably Greek. In translation: 'And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the foregiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body.'

Irenaeus, 1995, Irénée de Lyon, Démonstration de la prédication apostolique, Introduction, traduction et notes par Adelin Rousseau (SC 406), Éditions du Cerf, Paris. [ Links ]

Jaschke, H.J., 1976, Der Heilige Geist im Bekenntnis der Kirche: Eine Studie zur Pneumatologie des Irenäus von Lyon im Ausgang vom altchristlichen Glaubensbekenntnis, Aschendorff, Münster. [ Links ]

Jungmann, J.A., 1952, Missarum sollemnia: Eine genetische Erklárung der römischen Messe, Dritte Auflage, Herder, Wien. [ Links ]

Kelly, J.N.D., 1967, Early Christian Creeds, Adam & Charles Black, London. [ Links ]

Kelly, J.N.D., 1968, Early Christian Doctrines, Adam & Charles Black, London. [ Links ]

Kettler, F.H., 1962, 'Trinität, Dogmengeschichlich', in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, pp. 1025-1032, Dritte Auflage, Band VI, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. [ Links ]

Kretschmar, G., 1956, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie, Mohr, Tübingen. [ Links ]

Krüger, G., 1968, Die Apologien Justins des Märtyrers, Minerva, Frankfurt. [ Links ]

Even in 1. Cor. 12,13 and 14 you cant find this doctrine with the Holy Spirit given as empowering and the sign for that is speaking in tongues. Why the christians Continue in the churchhistory Has not this enlightning? Instead many cults came up, like the montanism.

Look in the book of Acts. In chapter 8, the Samaritans believed and were baptized. In Acts 19, about 12 men who had previously been baptized with the baptism of John accepted the gospel and were baptized. But the Holy Spirit did not come upon them immediately. That occurred after Paul laid hands on them. In both there was time between new believers believing the gospel and being baptized with water and the time the Spirit came/fell upon them. In Acts 8, it said they had not yet received the Spirit. Would you say these believers were unsaved before the apostles came to visit them?

Acts is an report about the birth of the church. And it reports about the beginning of the church till Pauls final prison time. So far Acts 8, 19 and also 10, you can see as a one Time Report for the jews that the Gospel was not only for the Jews as they supposed. It was also for the Samaritians (8), Gentiles(10) and disciples of John the baptist (19). Nothing more and less. To create from this the Doctrine that believers Need a Second baptism and as sign for that the speaking in tongues, for to be empowered is speculation.
This you Can only hold when you construct this view, but this is not in this Way taught from the NT writers. And we should expect that such an important fact should be taught clearly.

Paul said quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things, Hold fast to that which is good.

He did not limit 'despise not prophesyings' to only the prophecies written in scripture, as you seem to be doing. Paul encouraged the Corinthians and all other genuine Christians to '...covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues' and commanded them to 'Let the prophets speak....' These prophecies are revelatory in nature because Paul wrote, 'If a revelation cometh to one who sitteth by....'

The 'perfect law of liberty' was perfect in the first century before the Bible was completed. The perfection Paul speaks of is the type of perfection such that Paul's understanding when he wrote I Corinthians will seem childish in comparison to what will come. He said when he was a child, he understood as a child, but when he becomes a man, he will put away childish things. Can you honestly say that the completion of the canon made your understanding so great that the apostle's understanding in the first century which he wrote in the Bible is childish to you?

LEt's look at the verse from I Corinthians 4 that you seem to be referring to:

6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

This is the same book where Paul lists 'divers tongues' among the manifestations of the Spirit and says 'forbid not to speak with tongues. The verse you are paraphrasing and misapplying is about Corinthians who thought to highly of certain religious leaders and were proud of their association with them. It is not a verse that should be used to reject and contradict Paul's teaching on prophecy, tongues, and other gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12-14.

Do not despise the gifts of the Spirit which God gave for the edificaton of the church. Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. Combined with interpretation, if spoke in church, it edifies the church. Let us stick with the teaching of scripture and not make up our own theories.

It was not uncommon. It is simply God brining a evil against the Jews who refuse to hear prophecy, the word of God.

Strong's lexicon #3934 1) mocking, derision, stammering 1a)mocking, derision 1b) stammerings

Stammering lips are mocking, lips of derision.

In effect the Holy Spirit is saying because you refuse to hear me but are simply empty words. Therefore because you have another kind of authority as oral traditions of men I will laugh at you when I come and bring my speech in all the nations of the world. (Acts 2)

When the Holy Spirit put his words on Peter's lips the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interpreter gave ears to hear what he was saying to all of the nations that were there.. He did not say make a noise to hear oneself as evidence a person has the Holy Spirit as some assume.

The apostle Paul uses a passage taken from Isaiah 28:11 to describe how God speaks to the Christian church thru speaking in other tongues other than Hebrew alone.... yet for all that you would think they would repent, no, but they continue to do what so ever their own mouth says.

A good example of why he derided or mocked them is found in Jerimiah 44 below. In effect he is still mocking the unbelieving Jew .

The veil is rent and the unbelieving (no faith) Jews still will not hear the gospel But will certainly do whatsoever thing comes from our own mouths as the oral traditions of men .The same fault the Catholics follow after following after a law of the fathers as if they were a divine source of faith

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw "no evil" Jerimiah44:16-17
.

Acts is an report about the birth of the church. And it reports about the beginning of the church till Pauls final prison time. So far Acts 8, 19 and also 10, you can see as a one Time Report for the jews that the Gospel was not only for the Jews as they supposed. It was also for the Samaritians (8), Gentiles(10) and disciples of John the baptist (19). Nothing more and less. To create from this the Doctrine that believers Need a Second baptism and as sign for that the speaking in tongues, for to be empowered is speculation.
This you Can only hold when you construct this view, but this is not in this Way taught from the NT writers. And we should expect that such an important fact should be taught clearly.

***And what are the warnings and promises in Romans 9-11. They show that the Replacement Theology Doctrine is wrong.

that is a false narrative there is no doctrine of a second Baptism but One of water and of the Holy Spirit which The Lord Jesus is the one who does it. Water baptism is that of repentance also known as John's baptism Paul met men in the book of Acts chapter 19: 1-7

1. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He 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. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 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. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.

Your assertion that these events occurred ro show that the Gospel was not only for the Jews is speculation. The idea that Jews needed special proof that followers of John the Baptist--who were likely Jews themselves-- could be saved is a very strange idea indeed. What other Jews would haveen ore nr besides Paul and his co-laborers?

The idea of the Spirit coming upon certain individuals was already established in the Old Testament.

If I am Not wrong, then pentecostals as well charismatics Teach a baptism with the Holy Spirit, depart from the receiving of the Holy Spirit, what is the real baptism with the Holy Spirit.
You may ignore the fact that Acts is an History Books which reports the Historie about the Church, as well Genesis reports the Historie about mankind and the election of the Nation of Israel. Both are not written to construct teachings out. Yet you Can find storys we can learn about.
About Acts 19, which you mentioned, you cant make an one Time Event to an General Doctrine.

You Call it speculation. I Call it: Read the Context as whole and it is clear.

Why Else this is written? In the Eyes of the official meaning of the Jews, Gentiles, Samaritias and the disciples of John the Baptist were Not accepted for to receive the Messiah Jesus Christ.

With this Events in Acts 8, 10 and 19 God Made clear that the Gospel is for All and the Messiah came for all.

Further, you cant compare the OT Coming of the Holy Spirit who came for a Special Time to selected people with the constant living Holy Spirit in every born again christian since Pentecost.

It seems quite clear to me that you are eisegeting into the text.



In the case of the Samaritans you are in a message that the oaesage does not teach. You are also getting doctrine from (or rather reading into) a narrative passage. Lule's explanationfor why they had not recieve the Spirit was because they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In regard to the disciples of John the baptist the passage does not mention any other Jewish onlookers. It was extremely unlikely the
temple authorities were there. Jesus had apostles who were disciples of John and He spoke highly of John. John's disciples would likely have been considered closer to the kingdom of heaven.


For Acts 10 and 11 you have a point. But we also see in Acts 2, Pete told of an outpouring of the Spirit in the last dys, prophesying, dreams, and visions even for them which are afar off. In Acts 11 we see that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for Gentiles also. These are things we can learn rom these passages of scriptu 2 is often uses from re.


Says who? Jesus sent the twelve yo teach the nation. Why shouldn't we believe Peter's preaching and comments about the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and 11. All scripture is profitable for doctrine.

gh someone is disagreeing with you. Quote them, or drop the matter.

Let's try to follow the discussion, shall we? Look again at my post to which you responded with the above.

"Who is doing that? Who is advocating that?"

"You keep repeating this line of thinking as though someone is disagreeing with you. Quote them, or drop the matter."

Destroys? No; God's integrity is unaffected by our beliefs. The coherence of our views might be compromised though. Given your assertion, it amazes me that you continually conflate tongues and prophecy when Scripture clearly distinguishes them.

For at least the tenth time, "tongues" is not "prophecy"; 1 Corinthians 14 makes that abundantly clear. I'm really beginning to wonder at your understanding of these issues.

You hold the view that if God speaks in any way at all, that it is (or should be part of) Scripture. I don’t agree.

I am absolutely certain that God speaks to individuals outside of Scripture, but it is logically impossible to prove that from Scripture. All I can point to is the last verse in John’s gospel; not everything is written down.

What I firmly disavow is any claim that such extra-biblical communication can add to, supersede or contradict Scripture.

You keep saying its sign the supports the believer as do those who seek after signs I say it a sign against them who refuse to believe not,

You might not say directly it is evidence they have the Holy Spirit but it must evidence either way to support something unless its a blank sign?

Still waiting for you to show me from 1 Corinthians 14 that tongues is not prophecy?

And when I suggested not to go above that which is written and violate the commandment now that we have the perfect and God is no longer bring any new prophecy you said...

Satan is still bringing signs and lying wonders . How can we make sure it is not him trying to influence a person to make a noise and call it tongues ?

I have done so several times. Read the text for yourself. Verses 2 and 3. If you don't see that the word "but" indicates a distinction between them, I can't help you see it.

Regarding your quote of a Catholic pope, I really don't care how non-Christians use passages of Scripture to justify their folly