How do you almost receive a gift?

[n david]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Obviously, we have no accord regarding pneumatology. That's pretty standard around here, from what I've seen and read.

So I will only say this: people, including children, have free wills. They can reach for God with all their heart, soul, and strength, and just as they are about to receive a touch from God, turn away, step back, and reject what was about to happen. It happens all the time, not just with receiving the Holy Spirit or speaking in tongues.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift given out of mercy by a loving Savior. It is never forced on anyone, ever. God doesn't operate like that. He is more than willing to give, and give, and keep giving, as long as faith in Him is present. People can reach out to receive, and receive, and receive, but draw away at the last moment.

This is obvious in all aspects of life. I can almost type ____, and change my mind last second, and not type it. I can almost say ____, and not say it, saying something else instead. I can reach out to receive a gift from someone at Christmas time or on my birthday, and pull back last minute, deciding I don't want it, letting it fall to the floor. I can almost take a bite out of a piece of food, and stop short when someone yells "Stop, the dog was on the table licking that before you came into the room"!

I can almost receive the Gospel and at the last minute, decide against giving my life to the Lord. I can think about repenting, and be on the verge of confessing my sins to God, and then hold up, and not do so. I can be this close to getting into the water and being baptized, and change my mind.

Just as a man or a woman can literally run from the altar a second after they've been asked to say "I do", and so, not marry, so, too can a person, even a child, for whatever reason, run from the Holy Spirit a second after God first moves on them in order to baptize them.

Did that person almost get married? Yes, almost, but not quite. Did that person almost receive the Holy Spirit, but didn't? Yes, almost. But not quite.

Did that person almost speak in tongues? Yes, but clamped up and refused to do so, for whatever reason, moments before they would have otherwise spoken in tongues. In that clamping up, since the Spirit is compared to living/running waters flowing out of one's side, it should be no surprise that when a person resists speaking in tongues, but still doesn't want to let go of the Spirit, either, that an impasse will occur at the point of entry, i.e. the mouth. This causes people to, for lack of a better word, stammer.

Should stammer be connected back to Isaiah 28:11-12? Someone else can argue over that. But stammering, shaking, quivering, or whatever word/synonym one wants to use, is still something that happens, especially to kids. Is it in the Bible? No, but there is also no Bible that states a child ever received the Holy Spirit, and yet children all over the world receive the Holy Spirit constantly (while it is promised to children a la Acts 2:39, we read no actual account of it occurring, but know it must have and still does). So, looking in the Word for something and not finding it printed exactly as you want doesn't mean it's not legitimate or not from God.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by n david

That's a good description of how it's taken out of context and misapplied.

Originally Posted by n david

IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them.

Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

[Dordrecht]

Paul's epistles were to believers, and as such it's likely they already had received the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

I think there were also non-christians in the early church.
Just like there are non-christians in the church today.

Likely so; however, the letters were addressed to the "saints," "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Paul's Epistles were to instruct the saints, not non-christians.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

That's a good description of how it's taken out of context and misapplied.

Originally Posted by n david

IMO, the "rest" is not speaking of the Holy Ghost at all. Nowhere in the chapter is this supported. The context of Isaiah 28 is a warning and judgement because Israel would not listen. The "rest" mentioned in verse 12 refers to verses 2-6. Then verse 7 says, "But they have erred..." and continues to write that because Israel refuses to listen, God will then use foreign oppressors who speak a foreign and strange language to speak to them.

Paul's brief mention of Isaiah's words was also as a judgement. Both speak of not hearing or listening to the Lord. Verse 19 says Paul would rather speak 5 words clearly than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, then later says tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not believers.

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Well, I see what you're saying, but if we interpret scriptures based on context only, then how do you justify Paul and Peter's use of Isaiah 28:16 to bolster the claim that Jesus is the stone being referred to in verse 16? wouldn't that be a misapplication of scripture?

Isn't Isaiah 28 speaking to the religious "leaders" of Israel?

7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

How is "rest" which is being described as a "refreshing" also a judgment to the people? He rather seems to prophecy that He will deliver the people from the rulers of Israel.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Verse 17 seems to begin with the judgment to those that don't accept Him.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Isn't Isaiah 28 speaking to the religious "leaders" of Israel?

7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

How is "rest" which is being described as a "refreshing" also a judgment to the people? He rather seems to prophecy that He will deliver the people from the rulers of Israel.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Verse 17 seems to begin with the judgment to those that don't accept Him.

The rest isn't the judgement...the part about stammering lips and other tongues is speaking of judgement as a result of foreign invaders. And yes, it is directed towards the rulers and prophets.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

We should be looking for the fruit of the gift, the change that it brings into a life, rather than using the measuring stick of tongues.

Tongues recorded in the book of Acts were the initial evidence of the HG taking up residence in a believer's heart, then... Paul begins to teach the church about the fruits of the spirit, why? Because if that gift has truly been received and activated in the heart and life of a believer, the fruit of the spirit begins to work. Love begins to be the language lived out in the life of the one who received the gift. Tongues are not a measuring stick. The fruit of the spirit becomes the evidence, the real measuring stick in the life of a believer, not tongues.

For too long, the church has been focused on the tongues, although it was the initial evidence as we see in Acts. It was an obvious thing that people could see and hear. But after that initial evidence, there is no other reference in the book of Acts to tongues, other than initial evidence. Please don't get me wrong, I believe that tongues is a gift that God gives us to communicate with him, and for the spirit to intercede through us, and is a special gift from Jesus to his church.

However, tongues are not mentioned in Paul's writings to the NT church as an indication of their salvation. Not once. Instead, the fruit of the spirit are taught as indicators for the measurement of where one is in their relationship with Jesus.

This needs to be understood better by the church as a whole. The initial evidence of tongues, and then fruit of the spirit that comes as a result of a transformed spirit-filled life, needs to be taught equally, working together side by side, not one without the other.

Originally Posted by n david

Paul's epistles were to believers, and as such it's likely they already had received the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. To downplay its significance just because Paul write it would be wrong.

If you were to write a letter to a church today, would there not be sinners, and saints both present and listening? If not, that church is a dead place, with no active work of the spirit there.

So, just because Paul was writing to the saints, he would have to still be addressing those who were in the process of believing. So, it remains that if the tongues initial evidence were as important as the OP place it as, that Paul would have at least ONCE said something about it. But he doesn't.

However, the yard stick brought up constantly in his writings is fruit of the spirit, which is also exactly what Jesus taught too (if the branch isn't bearing fruit, it needs to be pruned).

The whole premise that the NT was written to "believers" is how many OP like to skip around the whole tongues teaching, and it is a broken analogy. Paul's writings were indeed to the church, but that church would have included both saints and sinners alike who needed to hear the whole gospel.

Originally Posted by n david

I do agree that after the initial evidence, one must move forward and mature as a believer, and in doing so should demonstrate the fruit of the spirit.

Amen!

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

If you were to write a letter to a church today, would there not be sinners, and saints both present and listening? If not, that church is a dead place, with no active work of the spirit there.

So, just because Paul was writing to the saints, he would have to still be addressing those who were in the process of believing. So, it remains that if the tongues initial evidence were as important as the OP place it as, that Paul would have at least ONCE said something about it. But he doesn't.

However, the yard stick brought up constantly in his writings is fruit of the spirit, which is also exactly what Jesus taught too (if the branch isn't bearing fruit, it needs to be pruned).

The whole premise that the NT was written to "believers" is how many OP like to skip around the whole tongues teaching, and it is a broken analogy. Paul's writings were indeed to the church, but that church would have included both saints and sinners alike who needed to hear the whole gospel.

1) Each of the Epistles are addressed to either "saints," the "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Not one is addressed to the unbeliever. And just because the Epistles are address to the saints, and not sinners doesn't mean there weren't sinners present, or that the church was dead. It simply means the content of the Epistles was not meant for sinners.

2) The content of the Epistles is for those who have been saved. I don't see anything in Paul's writings which is for the unbeliever.

3) I can turn your comment around and write that the whole premise that Paul's Epistles doesn't mention tongues as initial evidence is just a way for people to skip around the whole tongues as initial evidence thing. Paul didn't need to address initial evidence because he was writing to those who already received it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

The rest isn't the judgement...the part about stammering lips and other tongues is speaking of judgement as a result of foreign invaders. And yes, it is directed towards the rulers and prophets.

Except that Paul references Isaiah 28:11 in I Cor 14:21-22, saying in verse 22 - "Wherefore" or "so too" tongues are for a sign. As is Paul's style, we find him using scripture allusively but also reflecting on the illumination brought to scripture for the new covenant people by the Holy Ghost.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

1) Each of the Epistles are addressed to either "saints," the "sanctified," "brethren," "bishops and deacons," etc. Not one is addressed to the unbeliever. And just because the Epistles are address to the saints, and not sinners doesn't mean there weren't sinners present, or that the church was dead. It simply means the content of the Epistles was not meant for sinners.

2) The content of the Epistles is for those who have been saved. I don't see anything in Paul's writings which is for the unbeliever.

3) I can turn your comment around and write that the whole premise that Paul's Epistles doesn't mention tongues as initial evidence is just a way for people to skip around the whole tongues as initial evidence thing. Paul didn't need to address initial evidence because he was writing to those who already received it.

You have to be able to admit NDavid, that if Paul recognized the heaven/hell aspect that the OPs ascribe to the initial evidence tongues doctrine, that it would have been mentioned in passing, or referenced to at least ONCE in his writings?

But no, of course you don't want to admit that, because then that crumbles the whole tongues heaven/hell doctrine.

Don't get me wrong. There is no doubt Acts has clear proof of tongues as initial evidence. But it doesn't go any farther than that. The OP have taken it and placed it as salvational, which Paul or any of the other NT writers did.

You are side stepping the issue, as all OP do. You are upholding a doctrine that is used to send people to hell, that should not.

Instead, if more emphasis was placed on the fruits of the spirit, as Paul did, then perhaps we would see revivals in church that we are desiring. But people believe that just because they do or do not speak in tongues, that it is determining their salvation... and Paul NEVER once said that.