Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Is there any scripture that separates the "initial evidence" of tongues from either prayer language, or the gift of tongues?

It's not expiclitly stated in any single verse, but contextually, it's fairly easy to see that the NT makes the distinctions among the 3 manifestations of speaking in tongues...

1...We see repeatedly in Acts where people spoke in tongues when they initially received the gift of the Holy Ghost.... (Explicitly stated in Acts 2,10, and 19... and also implied in Acts 8)

2... But Paul also speaks of tongues as a prayer language, such as when he refers to "praying with the spirit" as opposed to praying with the mind. (1 Cor 14:13-17) This is tongues for the individual's benefit, since this edifies their own spirit. In this instance no interpretation is necessary, because the person is speaking to God in the spirit realm. Here Paul even gives an example of how a person sitting at a meal should not pray in tongues at the giving of thanks, because it doesnt bless the others who are sitting at the table. So clearly this is a different manifestation of speaking tongues than what we see when someone receives the baptism of the spirit.

3... In the same chapter he speaks of the gift of tongues along with th gift of interpretation, to benefit the church body. Paul contrasts the gift of tongues with the gift of prophecy... and Paul makes it known that tongues plus interpretation is equivalent to the gift of prophecy, while the gift of prophecy is itself greater than the gift of tongues since prophecy edifies the church body. This is the type of "message in tongues and interpretation" that fairly common in Apostolic churches. From the context of that chapter we clearly see two separate manifestations of the tongues there-- (one to benefit the individual, and one in conjunction with the gift of interpretation, to benefit the church)

So from New Testament context, we see 3 different manifestations of tongues... (namely, two distinct manifestations of the gift of tongues, as mentioned above --- as well as the speaking in tongues that we see accompanying the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit)

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

But, once again, we're making assumptions that there are different types of tongues.

BUt, as I said, I won't discuss that here, it's a thread hijacker. I'll start another thread, maybe!

There are, as seen in 1 Cor chapter 14, and even...

1 Cor 12:10

10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

It's not expiclitly stated in any single verse, but contextually, it's fairly easy to see that the NT makes the distinctions among the 3 manifestations of speaking in tongues...

1...We see repeatedly in Acts where people spoke in tongues when they initially received the gift of the Holy Ghost.... (Explicitly stated in Acts 2,10, and 19... and also implied in Acts 8)

2... But Paul also speaks of tongues as a prayer language, such as when he refers to "praying with the spirit" as opposed to praying with the mind. (1 Cor 14:13-17) This is tongues for the individual's benefit, since this edifies their own spirit. In this instance no interpretation is necessary, because the person is speaking to God in the spirit realm. Here Paul even gives an example of how a person sitting at a meal should not pray in tongues at the giving of thanks, because it doesnt bless the others who are sitting at the table. So clearly this is a different manifestation of speaking tongues than what we see when someone receives the baptism of the spirit.

3... In the same chapter he speaks of the gift of tongues along with th gift of interpretation, to benefit the church body. Paul contrasts the gift of tongues with the gift of prophecy... and Paul makes it known that tongues plus interpretation is equivalent to the gift of prophecy, while the gift of prophecy is itself greater than the gift of tongues since prophecy edifies the church body. This is the type of "message in tongues and interpretation" that fairly common in Apostolic churches. From the context of that chapter we clearly see two separate manifestations of the tongues there-- (one to benefit the individual, and one in conjunction with the gift of interpretation, to benefit the church)

So from New Testament context, we see 3 different manifestations of tongues... (namely, two distinct manifestations of the gift of tongues, as mentioned above --- as well as the speaking in tongues that we see accompanying the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit)


There are, as seen in 1 Cor chapter 14, and even...

1 Cor 12:10

10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Excellent summation, TR, thanks for taking the time to put it together.

However, my original question still stands - when Paul said "not all speak with tongues" how do we know for sure he was ONLY referring to the "gift of tongues"?

Especially since there are instances of folks receiving the Holy Ghost in the BOok of Acts and it is not stated that they spoke with tongues?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, Miz.

I'm saying that even though we do have scripture regarding tongues at Pentecost (which was not necessarily an unknown tongue, those who had been filled were speaking in known languages, just not known to THEM) and then there is the unknown tongue that Paul speaks of in the context of prophecy.

It was an unknown language to the one speaking. That was what is miraculous about it.

My question is - when Paul says that "not all speak with tongues" what allows us to make the assumption that he is ONLY speaking of the gift of tongues as in prophecy?

First off, the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are two different gifts.

And secondly, the entire chapter in 1 Corinthians 12 is about the gifts of the Spirit which Paul elaborates on.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.


7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men....
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

1Cor 12:29-30 is speaking of the gifts of the Spirit which God gives as He wills to each of us. Does He give each of us the gift of miracles? No. Does He give to each of us the gift of tongues? No. Paul further goes on to describe the gift of tongues and contrast it with the gift of prophecy in 1 Cor 14. He speaks of the usage gift of tongues in the public gathering (the church) and in private (in prayer). Tongues in 1 Corinthians is all in the context of the GIFTS of the Spirit not the initial infilling/baptism of the Spirit.

It is in the book of Acts where we find what happens when believers receive the baptism of the Spirit. They speak in tongues. The apostles recognize an infilling when they hear someone speaking in tongues. It is the benchmark that God set in upon the very first outpouring of the Spirit.

So my question is...if you believe someone who speaks in tongues is doing so because they have received the gift of tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians then why don't I speak in tongues years after I first spoke in tongues? Did God take this gift away from me? I spoke in tongues over 20 years ago and I haven't spoken in tongues since yet I have been blessed with wonderful visitations of God and I feel His presence in me and upon me often and usually when I don't expect it like at work or when I'm reading posts on AFF as well as in worship, when I pray, etc... I believe God has given me a different gift from the list in 1 Cor 12.

You've been taught differently, Michael, but others will say that speaking in tongues is the gift spoken of in 1 Cor 12 not an evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. My question to those who believe that, and Dan stated that that is what he believes, is "Did God take this gift away from me?"

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It was an unknown language to the one speaking. That was what is miraculous about it.

First off, the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are two different gifts.

And secondly, the entire chapter in 1 Corinthians 12 is about the gifts of the Spirit which Paul elaborates on.

It is in the book of Acts where we find what happens when believers receive the baptism of the Spirit. They speak in tongues. The apostles recognize an infilling when they hear someone speaking in tongues. It is the benchmark that God set in upon the very first outpouring of the Spirit.

So my question is...if you believe someone who speaks in tongues is doing so because they have received the gift of tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians then why don't I speak in tongues years after I first spoke in tongues? Did God take this gift away from me? I spoke in tongues over 20 years ago and I haven't spoken in tongues since yet I have been blessed with wonderful visitations of God and I feel His presence in me and upon me often and usually when I don't expect it like at work or when I'm reading posts on AFF as well as in worship, when I pray, etc... I believe God has given me a different gift from the list in 1 Cor 12.

You've been taught differently, Michael, but others will say that speaking in tongues is the gift spoken of in 1 Cor 12 not an evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. My question to those who believe that, and Dan stated that that is what he believes, is "Did God take this gift away from me?"

I don't know if God took a gift away from you, or not, Miz, only you know that. I highly doubt it, since the Bible says the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

So, here are my follow up questions:

1.) IF the initial outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 was evidenced by "other" tongues, i.e., a language that was known, but not known to the speaker, then why shouldn't THAT be our benchmark for the evidence of receiving the HG today? If we really want to 'stay in context', shouldn't every infilling follow the signs of the first infilling to a tee?

2.) Can one receive the Holy Ghost WITHOUT speaking in tongues? There are certainly instances in the Book of Acts where folks DID receive the Spirit, and the Bible never stated that they spoke with tongues. Do you just assume that they did speak with tongues in every instance because it's recorded in some?

And, if so, is there a flaw with that assumption?

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by bishoph

DA, I love ya man…….. but this is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen you use.

Whoever the writer is, he/she has (if they are writing this to “debunk” the “initial evidence” doctrine) made a grave hermeneutic (rightly divide the Word) error. The writer would be correct to make such an assertion, if Acts 2 was the only historical narrative where speaking with other tongues as the spirit of God gives the utterance was experienced at the time of “receiving” the spirit. However, we have three separate times (Acts 2, 10, & 19) in which the narrative explicitly describes speaking in tongues at the point of receiving the Spirit, and one which implies it. (Acts 8) In one of these accounts, (Acts 10) those witnessing the event directly identified how they “knew” that the people had “received” the spirit. The Jewish believers[e] who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. (Acts 10:45-46 NLT).

Moses striking the rock was not the "normative" manner of getting water, however, there is nothing in the book of Acts that describes any other manner or initial "sign" of having recieved the spirit than speaking with other tongues, thus it was not only normative it was indeed the precedent.

Using this type of argument is an extreme stretch at best, (which your author admitted) or an outright attempt to wrest the scriptures and mislead people away from truth, at worst.

BUMP for DA

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

And tapping on rocks is how we get water?

Post #113

Sorry I missed that argument earlier.

I do not know whom you were quoting but they have done further violence to their premise.

The scripture is PLAIN, the rock was struck ONCE. When Moses struck it the second time he was rebuked and it was the cause him not being able to enter the promised land.

As opposed to Acts where is it clear speaking in tongues was NOT an isolated event, by time, place, or people involved.

BUMP this one on the same topic as well.

[James Griffin]

Interesting thread with good courteous interaction !!!

A new an improved AFF?

Might have to start hanging around a little bit more often.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Excellent summation, TR, thanks for taking the time to put it together.

However, my original question still stands - when Paul said "not all speak with tongues" how do we know for sure he was ONLY referring to the "gift of tongues"?

Especially since there are instances of folks receiving the Holy Ghost in the BOok of Acts and it is not stated that they spoke with tongues?

How do we know? From the context.

In the book of Acts they are showing instances of new believers receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit for the first time.

In the context of 1Cor 12 and 14, Paul was not speaking about the gift/baptism of the Holy Spirit. He was speaking of to church folks about spiritual gifts. That is the critical difference.

The very chapter starts out by making that clear immediately:

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

So he's clearly speaking of tongues in terms of being the gift of tongues in this context, as he continues:

9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

All the other things he speaks of in those verses are referring to the gifts of the spirit. So why should we think otherwise when he mentions tongues in that context ?

Even as he continues in the chapter he is clearly still talking about spiritual gifts...

29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

When he asks here: "do all speak with tongues?" (a rhetorical question whose answer is clearly "no"), the implication is obvious in this context. He is saying not all have the gifts of healing, not all have the gift of prophecy, not all have the gift of tongues, not all have the gift of interpretation, etc.

This is the clear and natural understanding that follows the context of the whole chapter. I believe if a person approaches the text with a clear-headed mindset, without trying to insert their own meaning or preconceived notions into it, the passage's meaning becomes abundantly clear.

Paul is not saying "do all speak in tongues when they receive he baptism of the Spirit?" or even implying anything regarding that. He was addressing the church at Corinth -- that is, saved folks. Paul had already said to them: "by one Spirit we are baptized into one body" (v 13) , so it was understood they had already received the Holy Ghost, so this was a totally separate discussion . There is nothing anywhere in those chapters (12-14) to indicate that Paul is referring to tongues as it relates to the gift/baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

2.) Can one receive the Holy Ghost WITHOUT speaking in tongues? There are certainly instances in the Book of Acts where folks DID receive the Spirit, and the Bible never stated that they spoke with tongues. Do you just assume that they did speak with tongues in every instance because it's recorded in some?

And, if so, is there a flaw with that assumption?

Mike, I luv you bro, but you're killing me here.

Careful now... If you want to use that line of argument, it simply doesn't hold up.

For example... there are certainly instances in the Book of Acts where it talks about people being saved, but the Bible never stated that they repented. Should we just assume that repentance isnt necessary for salvation since it's not recorded in each instance?

If so, wouldnt there be a serious flaw with that assumption?

Thanks for playing

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree that they preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and never taught that sins are washed/remitted at baptism to Jews and Gentiles ALIKE.

Both taught, even in the historical narrative (Acts), that faith in Christ (turning to God )/repentance (turning from sin) - different side of the same coin .... results in forgiveness/remission AND ULTIMATELY SALVATION IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

Paul summarizing his APOSTOLIC message of salvation to the elders in Ephesus as he leaves the work to them:

Acts 20:

17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter to Jews:

Acts 3::
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ[a] would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.


Acts 11: (Peter states repentance results in life - this before baptism of Gentiles)

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

(why not the 3 stepper emphasis in the sermons by APOSTLES IN ACTS? Why DIDN'T PETER say they spoke in tongues and therefore were almost saved, until we dunked them IN A PROPERLY ADMINISTERED BAPTISM in his recap of the message he preached to Cornelius?)


All narrative from the ANSWER KEY OF COURSE!!!!

Never once in Acts a sermon to the lost saying come to the altar and you'll have to speak in tongues to prove your salvation ... OR infilling?

Their message is clear even in the book that seems to take pre-eminence in the minds of some.

Dan two things I noticed quickly. Those versus refer to the HG coming on them "as at the beginning" and reference to "times of refreshing" (Isa 28:11). This post proves the essentiality of repentance, but neither discounts the common knowledge and of various other accounts, HG was always signified with tongues.