Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Micheal also brings a very important point that the initial tongues/"initial evidence" in Acts 2 were human tongues and were intelligible ... a point that brought the notorious Dr. Vaughn some serious flak on this forum. It's very legitimate in the light that many do not speak intelligibly.

Even if I accept it as normative ... the onus that is salvational brings a interesting conondrum to the 3 step crowd.

First, Jesus (who I believe holds the trump card in all things doctrinal) said it is a sign that woud FOLLOW A BELIEVER ...



Are all of these signs that FOLLOW A BELIEVER now salvational? Essential? If I don't cast out a demon do I get to punch my ticket?

Or are they all accessible? available? to be done IN HIS NAME?

Also if what we hear from 3 step theology and doctrine is true it leads to another dilemma in Acts 10.

I've posted this before:

Some believe we must imitate, emulate, re-enact the death, burial, resurretion of Jesus Christ by obeying the Gospel as stated by Peter in Acts 2:38 to be fully saved and born again.

They also believe that John 3:3 teaches the that being born of the water and spirit ... being born again is fully complete by a properly administered water baptism and speaking in other tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Water baptism is perceived as being part of a recipe ... part of the BORN AGAIN MIX. Furthermore, water baptism is compared by them to only being buried w/ Christ.

The issue I'd like to address is whether or not this "burial" indeed partially regenerates us ... and is efficacious in quickening us by His Spirit into new birth, albeit partial.

It is my belief that Acts 10 still is the smoking gun ... against 3 step theology. If baptism is a burial of the dead man ... necessary to rid the man of the body of sin and wipe his sin stain ... then how could the Spirit of God quicken unto righteousness and life that which is still dead?

Does the indwelling of the Holy Ghost ["resurrrection"} represent the final piece of the 3 step puzzle that must be re-enacted that raises us into new life? ... does His Spirit do this while not setting us free of the law of sin and death or putting to death the deeds/sins of the body? (Romans 8:13)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read Acts 8: 1-14 for this discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In Acts 10, we find those in the house of Cornelius showing evidence of being indwelt w/ the Holy Spirit yet had not, as some teach, been buried their body of sin ... or carnal man. Some would even say because they had not been baptized they are not yet declared righteous/justified and/or their slate not wiped clean through a properly administered baptism that would effectuate sin remission.

Furthermore, those w/ this sacramental mindset [a rite that mediates grace] are the first to say that unless one does not have the Spirit of Christ they are not His as it applies to speaking in tongues ... yet we see Cornelius being declared His, prior to water baptism.
(Romans 8:9)

We see the the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus setting him free from the law of sin and of death prior to re-enacting a burial of the body of sin???? (Romans 8:2)

2. Also we see that he is declared righteous before God and he is alive because of Christ's imputed righteousness ... by the Spirit indwelling. ....

Romans 8:10 - If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

3. Finally, if re-enactment theology is God-ordained ... repentance is death, baptism is burial and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the resurrection ...

Then how can Cornelius through his being filled w/ the Holy Ghost have circumvented this process?
It is the initial indwelling of the Spirit of God that puts to DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY SO THAT WE MAY BE QUICKENED TO LIFE, or Destroys the body of sin (Romans 6:6) ...

Romans 13 .... for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
These gaping holes in their theology show that one, namely Cornelius and those in his house, can be declared righteous, quickened unto life, put to death the deeds of the body, be declared His, set free from the law of sin and death .... not condemened in Christ Jesus ... PRIOR TO BEING FULLY SAVED ... REGENERATED ...OR COMPLETING THE NEW BIRTH PROCESS.

Cornelius was declared a son of God ... born of God ... prior to baptism. With all the priveleges ... full access to our Father and the inheritance of new life.

Romans 8
14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

All this before being BURIED INTO CHRIST and having the blood applied in his life???

Please reconcile Romans 8 and other scripture pointing to being born again/born of God BY HIS SPIRIT before completing the proported Born Again recipe.

To answer Matt's question w/ another question ... How can Cornelius been quickened to life while still dead in sin?

Sorry, Dan, I don't want to discuss baptism with you until you take the time to go back to the thread you started where you implied I was a heretic and deal with my response to your accusations. Do you remember that thread? It was all about the blood of Christ and water baptism.

And I have addressed the smoking gun of those who receive the Spirit prior to water baptism before. At least my thoughts on the subject. I don't think you've ever responded to them. You may have missed it when you were banned.

God bless you and Cass and your new life together in Christ. Are you spending Christmas in NY?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I have noticed this so often in conversations with 3 step pentecostals.

After finding their doctrine crumbles as a house of cards, they "grow tired" of the conversation and become "weary" in their defense.

Next will be the cry to ban Dan.

Giving up and quitting and becoming tired of the same old, same old is not the same thing. You give yourself too much credit!

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Yes, thanks, you did answer my question, but I disagree with your assessment. It's just a minor point but I read the whole of 1 Cor 12-14 as being about the gifts of the Spirit. And someone with the gift of tongues can speak in tongues in prayer to God silently or give a message to the entire congregation if that is how the Spirit moves. If a believer doesn't have the gift of tongues, then they don't speak in tongues in prayer or to the congregation.



1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

In context, Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues and he doesn't differentiate between someone speaking in tongues in prayer or to the congregation with the anticipation of an interpretation. And to top it off, Paul states that he wishes everyone spoke in tongues but he would prefer above everyone having the gift of tongues for them to have the gift of prophecy that the whole church would be edified because they would all understand what was being said and would not need an interpreter.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, you're right. We may have to disagree.

If a believer doesn't have the gift of tongues, then they don't speak in tongues in prayer or to the congregation.

And what I believe is if a believer doesn't have the gift of tongues, then they don't speak to the congregation. Their tongues are only between themselves and God. The only time the gift is in operation is when God is delivering a message to the assembly, even if that's only 2 or 3 gathered together.

I agree with you that these chapters are obviously dealing with the Gifts. In chapter 14, however, I believe Paul is differentiating between the gift of tongues and private expression. There is a fine line he walks between the two, and sometimes it appears he refers to one, when in reality he refers to the other. I will have to go down verse by verse to explain what I mean (perhaps at a later time someday).

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't go into as much detail as you and I would've liked for him to because he is assuming his readers already know some of the subject matter. After all, they are already being used in these gifts, and Paul is "moving them on towards perfection", so to speak.

[DaveC519]

That indicates to me that some saints want to be used so much that they are going about it in the wrong way. The chapter doesn't speak to me of anything other than decency and order.

Brother, you just spoke a whole lotta truth in those few words. And I think that's the reason Paul sandwiched the "love chapter" in between 12 and 14.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Yes, you're right. We may have to disagree.

And what I believe is if a believer doesn't have the gift of tongues, then they don't speak to the congregation. Their tongues are only between themselves and God. The only time the gift is in operation is when God is delivering a message to the assembly, even if that's only 2 or 3 gathered together.

Sorry to jump in here... I hope you don't mind Dave.

Your take is what many read if they only see a particular type of tongues in Paul's admonition of Cor. 14

I would say the only division made by Paul in the chapter are those tongues that are interpreted, being contrasted to those not interpreted (a possible exception here for "silent" or inaudible tongues might be made)

Paul's concern was that the unbelievers hear in the language they understand. It's not clear that Paul spoke in tongues at church at all - even tongues being interpreted.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

...

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Sam

We need to be careful we don't impose restrictions that are overly tight on people. That could quench the Spirit or put people in fear.

The way I understand the order of speaking with tongues in 1 Corinthians is that it is speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, as operated in a public service, not what happens when people are baptized in the Spirit. It does not apply to what happens when hands are laid upon a person to impart the Spirit baptism or to what happens when people at the altar, where many are praying together aloud, may speak out in tongues as the Spirit blesses them. In my opinion, no interpretation is required here although I've heard of it being done.

If we get too dogmatic, legalistic, or too concerned with "order" people will be afraid to speak out if they feel like they are being used to give a message in tongues.

If everyone is praying aloud at the same time, in my opinion, those prayers could be in one's known language or in one's prayer language. If one person is leading in prayer from the congregation or from the platform, those prayers should be in the common known language. If you are asked to bless the food, or bless the offering, or to dismiss the service, it should be in the commonly known language unless you (or someone else) interpret.

But to silence or muzzle someone who might get a little happy and say a few words in tongues when someone else can hear them, would, in my opinion, be following the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Hey, we're Pentecostal. Tongues happens in our churches. If people don't know that coming in, they find out sooner or later. Too much "decently and in order" can dry things up.

Brother, I believe that's where a pastor with wisdom and discernment is of much benefit. There is a fine line between not quenching the Spirit and still maintaining decency and order. It takes sensitivity from the pastor, from those used in the gifts, and from the saints, as well.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Sorry to jump in here... I hope you don't mind Dave.

Your take is what many read if they only see a particular type of tongues in Paul's discussion of Cor. 14

I would say the only division made by Paul in the chapter are those tongues that are interpreted, being contrasted to those not interpreted (a possible exception here for "silent" or inaudible tongues might be made)

Paul's concern was that the unbelievers hear in the language they understand. It's not clear that Paul spoke in tongues at church at all - even tongues being interpreted.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

...

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Hello Stephen,

No, I don't mind at all. Thank you for your comments.

In addition to what you've said, I believe Paul is also contrasting the gift of tongues with private expression.

I will offer some general observations (mine) on the chapter:

1)- an individual can speak in tongues both in private expression, and also be used in the gift of tongues, if God has so granted them to be used in this fashion.

2)- private expression edifies the individual, and not the assembly. The gift of tongues, as with all other gifts of the Spirit, edifies the entire assembly.

3)- the gift of tongues is manifested as a public expression (i.e., broadcast to the entire assembly), for the edification of the entire assembly.

4)- if a message in tongues (the operation of the gift of tongues) is expressed publicly (broadcast to the entire assembly), an interpretation should follow. If there is no interpretation, the individual giving the message should remain silent (cease public expression), and simply speak to himself and to God privately.

Your thoughts?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello Stephen,

No, I don't mind at all. Thank you for your comments.

In addition to what you've said, I believe Paul is also contrasting the gift of tongues with private expression.

I will offer some general observations (mine) on the chapter:

1)- an individual can speak in tongues both in private expression, and also be used in the gift of tongues, if God has so granted them to be used in this fashion.

2)- private expression edifies the individual, and not the assembly. The gift of tongues, as with all other gifts of the Spirit, edifies the entire assembly.

3)- the gift of tongues is manifested as a public expression (i.e., broadcast to the entire assembly), for the edification of the entire assembly.

4)- if a message in tongues (the operation of the gift of tongues) is expressed publicly (broadcast to the entire assembly), an interpretation should follow. If there is no interpretation, the individual giving the message should remain silent (cease public expression), and simply speak to himself and to God privately.

Your thoughts?

I can agree with all the points,

But you may define the bolded differently than I.

I would say the private expression must be limited to non public assembly use, or at the very least not heard by others - in particular the unlearned/visitor.

Remember there were no microphones at Corinth so one could not easily "drown out" a tongue speaker with a song etc.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I can agree with all the points,

But you may define the bolded differently than I.

I would say the private expression must be limited to non public assembly use, or at the very least not heard by others - in particular the unlearned/visitor.

Remember there were no microphones at Corinth so one could not easily "drown out" a tongue speaker with a song etc.

Must've been the wives doing all the tongue talking. Paul obviously directed these statements toward the women-folk, for he told them to keep silent in the church.

[mizpeh]

Dan,

The apostle Paul used narrative accounts to teach doctrine/for didactics. To teach justification by faith, he used the narrative accounts of Abraham. He used an analogy from a narrative to explain the two covenants and Israel after the flesh and Israel after the promise in Galatians 4. He used OT prophecy to support God's choice to save the Gentiles. He made numerous allusions to the OT in support of NT salvation. 2 Cor 3, 1 Cor 10:1-11, Roman 2:28-29, etc Even Peter used the Noah's ark narrative to compare to water baptism and salvation.

I'm sure there are a plethora of examples I am leaving out but the most direct answer to your initial post is found in 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness which Dave so aptly expounded on in post 181and which I don't believe you responded to yet. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=181


Dan, when does someone receive the initial infilling/baptism of the Holy Spirit? Is it at faith? at repentance? and can you provide scriptural support? What do you make of those three instances where believers were baptized with the Spirit and spoke in tongues? Should there be some type of "gift" sign like tongues or prophecy, a word of wisdom, a word knowledge whenever someone is filled with the Spirit for the first time? Or what scriptures would you use to teach a "second blessing"?