Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe you are correct. She apparently came to believe that the Pentecostal baptism might not always produce speaking in tongues. I guess she should have joined the Christian and Missionary Alliance instead?

Im still waiting for Jason or someone to give me the verse where one received the Spirit and produced another manifestation?

[obriencp]

Acts 4:31

Prophesying accompanies tongues in many of the passages and I feel that some think that prophesying = tongues. Joel prophesied that when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh that prophesying would be a sign. He didn't say tongues would be a sign. On pentecost when people were speaking in tongues they were actually prophesying in tongues (probably so that all those in Jerusalem could understand their prophesying and marvel at what God had done). But that does not make prophesying and tongues synomymous terms.

[Jason B]

I backed off AFF for a couple days simply because of how time consuming this thread was for a couple of my evenings. I do think its a good discussion, so I'll go back and see what I've missed and reply to those things.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Where are your sources for this? I just read an article posted contrary to this.

GS, I don't remember where I read that at (that Agnes Ozman denied the authenticity of her experience later in life). Since I don't have a source, we can just throw that comment out like hear say in a court of law. It is of no effect to my position.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think you may have missed this Jason. Isnt this huge? IN THE BIBLE in the New Testament there are zero snapshots of anyone who received the Holy Ghost and then did something first besides speaking in tongues.

If there were do you think there would be such a thing as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Of course not it would easily be refuted!

So we can go to the historical narrative in Acts and make a very strong case for our doctrine while all of Christendom cannot present such a case that shows someone was filled with the Spirit......and something ELSE occured.

Mike, I think you missed my reply, it was a few posts before this.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

21 epistles. Tongues only appears in 1. And it certainly doesn't seem like Paul believed that every Christian would speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:28-30 NLT
Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church: first are apostles, second are prophets, third are teachers, then those who do miracles, those who have the gift of healing, those who can help others, those who have the gift of leadership, those who speak in unknown languages. Are we all apostles? Are we all prophets? Are we all teachers? Do we all have the power to do miracles? Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not!

1 Corinthians 14:1-5 NLT
Let love be your highest goal! But you should also desire the special abilities the Spirit gives--especially the ability to prophesy. For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. But one who prophesies strengthens others, encourages them, and comforts them. A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church. I wish you could all speak in tongues, but even more I wish you could all prophesy. For prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues, unless someone interprets what you are saying so that the whole church will be strengthened.

Mike the point of these scriptures is that they strongly indicate that what you are asserting was the common universal initiative experience (speaking in tongues) was not at all common and universal according to the apostle Paul.

You say that all speak in tongues. Paul plainly says they don't. To me that alone ends the argument and my position is established while the initial evidence doctrine is successfully refuted. (That said, I'll continue the dialogue anyhow).

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think you may have missed this Jason. Isnt this huge? IN THE BIBLE in the New Testament there are zero snapshots of anyone who received the Holy Ghost and then did something first besides speaking in tongues.

If there were do you think there would be such a thing as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Of course not it would easily be refuted!

Yes, most certainly there would be a such thing as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. It nearly happened in the first century. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians chiding them about division in the church and we get an early precursor of denominations (I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos, I'm of Cephas....I'm of Luther, I'm of Wesley, I'm of Calvin, etc). But it certainly isn't far fetched to think that these believers who spoke in tongues seemed to think they were more spiritual than those who did not, they were the spiritual elistists, thinking the gift God gave them made them something special. So in answer to your question, a resounding YES, I can absolutely see there being such a thing as the pentecostal/charismatic movement, outside of apostolic orthodoxy.

It is also interesting that the teachings and rebukes of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12,13, and 14 could just as easily be an original message to any UPC Camp meeting or General conference and be just as fitting as when he wrote them to the Corinthians-the pentecostal movement is essentially the same ERROR the Corinthian church had. They need to realize that not all speak in tongues, that each member has a different gift, that love trumps all gifts, and even amongst the gifts prophecy is far superior to tongues. That if tongues are spoken in the assembly it should be no more than two or three in term, and there must be an (another, not their self) interpreter. If you all speak in tongues at the same time won't visitors think you're crazy (uh, yes--that's been proven), and that all things should be done decently and in order. The Pentecostal/charismatic movement pretty much poo-poos all those teachings just as the Corinthians did (hopefully they corrected these practices after Paul wrote to them). Nevertheless, like I said, it is the same ERROR and takes on the same characteristics.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So we can go to the historical narrative in Acts and make a very strong case for our doctrine while all of Christendom cannot present such a case that shows someone was filled with the Spirit......and something ELSE occured.

I think the word "strong" here is subjective. I can follow the argument from Acts. I think it is reasonable and makes sense if you only focus on select passages. I can see why someone would believe it.

But when the whole of scripture is taken into account (and I would argue even the whole of the book of Acts if we went chapter by chapter and compared every message the apostles preached with all the responses Luke records, where 18 of 21 conversion accounts do not mention tongues or even imply tongues) that the argument isn't as "strong" as it first appears. And weakens as one tries to harmonize it with the gospels and with the epistles.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

GS, I don't remember where I read that at (that Agnes Ozman denied the authenticity of her experience later in life). Since I don't have a source, we can just throw that comment out like hear say in a court of law. It is of no effect to my position.

The research I did tonight said she became convinced tongues was only a evidence like F. F. Bosworth and William Branham believed. But still maintained her experience as genuine.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

GS, I don't remember where I read that at (that Agnes Ozman denied the authenticity of her experience later in life). Since I don't have a source, we can just throw that comment out like hear say in a court of law. It is of no effect to my position.

Look in "Christianity Without the Cross" I believe it is mentioned in that book. Thomas Fudge did a good job recording his sources in the footnotes so you may even find his source.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Look in "Christianity Without the Cross" I believe it is mentioned in that book. Thomas Fudge did a good job recording his sources in the footnotes so you may even find his source.

I have researched several sources tonight all of them state she became convinced tongues was only one of the evidences of HGB but did maintain her experience until she died.

[Jason B]

Mike, I tip my cap to you for using the scripture to make your argument.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Reconciling Justification And Pentecostal Doctrine Of Salvation

Peter preached at Pentecost:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Acts 2:16-18

Peter equates Joels prophecy about the outpouring of the Spirit to what just happened. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Later on Peter sums up on the topic like this.

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath SHED FORTH this, which ye now see and hear.
Verse 33

So the outpouring of the Spirit here in Acts followed by speaking in tongues was the PROMISE OF THE FATHER Paul mentioned in Ephesians 1:13 and Jesus mentioned in Acts 1:4


Notice the words SHED FORTH THIS. In the NKJV it has the words "poured out this".

I'm following you, but I think you are forcing "speaking in tongues" into these passages.

However since you brought up Ephesians 1, especially the NKJV's rendering, do you care to comment on the fact that it seems to support my view much more than yours, in that I assert that when one truly believes they are saved (specifically at that moment God justifies them-forgives them of their sins and declares them right with Him, thus ceasing hostilities and being at peace with God. Then regenerates them through the Holy Spirit, which act simultaneously makes them a child of God by adoption-see Romans 3:22-25, Romans 4:24-5:2, Romans 8:8-17. This also fulfills the new birth spoken of by Jesus in John 3, which is a birth from above-John 3:6, which thought was introduced in John 1:12-13 and is repeated by Paul in Romans 8:14-17). Sorry that was a long parenthesis. So how do you explain Ephesians 1:13 which seems to confirm my position?

Ephesians 1:13-14 NKJV
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Keep in mind its talking about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Lets go to Romans 5:5

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

When Paul spoke to Romans about the love of God he said it was SHED ABROAD in our hearts by the HOLY SPIRIT which was given to us.

Interestingly in the NKJV again the term SHED ABROAD is translated as "poured out".

Obviously Paul is speaking to them about the OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Now hold onto your seats for this next one!

Titus 3:4-7

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul is writing about salvation. Being born again. He says God SAVED US (HOW) by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit which he SHED ON US through Jesus.

I think Titus 3:5 certainly bears consideration, but not so much from an initial evidence point of view. I think it is much stronger when used to assert that John 3:5 refers to baptism rather than natural birth. Those affirming baptismal regeneration (Esaias) find Titus to seem to affirm their position. Others say this is the washing of the Word spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 5:26 and Peter in 1 Peter 1:23.

That said, I'm not altogether dismissing Titus 3:5, as the goal of any conversation ought to be to discuss the scriptures as they are, not just you give your scriptures and I give mine. A good question to me (I'll ask it of myself) is how is Titus 3:5 consistent with your view of justification by faith?

Ok, now my question to you Mike is, do you see any significance in the phrase "renewing of the Holy Ghost"? If it is a "renewing" doesn't that suggest a prior experience? I've always wondered why Paul used that phrase there instead of "the infilling". Just want to get your thoughts on that, its something I haven't put time into at this point. So, note, I have not provided a sufficient answer to Titus 3:5.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So hes talking about HOW WE ARE SAVED.
Well very consistently we have the same connection. When Paul speaks of renewing of the Holy Spirit which he SHED ON US..... the NKJV renders this whom he POURED OUT ON US abundantly.

Are you seeing what Im seeing? Paul is saying its the OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT which is being saved by grace!

Yes, but I don't get the point, except you equate the Holy Spirit with tongues, I do not. Beside that, yes, I affirm your conclusions. We are saved by grace, we cannot be saved without the outpouring/indwelling/baptism of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9), and the Holy Spirit is a gift of God's grace. It is a free gift.

Mike, EVERYONE who is "saved by grace" receives the Spirit. Otherwise they aren't saved, again Romans 8:9, John 3:6.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Im still waiting for Jason or someone to give me the verse where one received the Spirit and produced another manifestation?

I think this question illustrates a fork in the road. Because OPs are so conditioned to see something external (whether speaking in tongues as an OUTWARD sign of the new birth, or overly demonstrative worship as an OUTWARD sign that someone isn't lukewarm)--that ya'll struggle to conceive of something otherwise.

I do think its interesting that one of the verses OPs use to support their doctrine of tongues as the intial evidence actually seems to contradict this very idea (that we have some tangible/external/outward proof/sign/evidence of that someone is born again at the moment of salvation). The scripture I speak of is John 3:8

John 3:8 NKJV
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

The OP interpretation I've heard is "there will be a SOUND when someone is born again-that sound is speaking in tongues."
2 objections:
1)If that is the case then the dilemma of sins forgiven at repentance or water baptism must be considered. Because obviously someone cannot be born again without their sins being forgiven. If you make tongues the new birth (and many of you do) you have to account for how a forgiven sinner (with their sins washed away by your own admissions) can go to hell, apparently NOT being born again, though forgiven of their sins by God, and not just their sins, but as Bernard states also "the PENALTY of those sins".
2)More to the point, the passage doesn't seem to say tongues are the sign someone is saved/born again/filled with the Holy Spirit at all. In fact, ironically, Jesus seems to be teaching the exact opposite. He seems to be saying to Nicodemus, "you can't explain or see how/when someone is born again-it is a work of God, not observable to the human eye".

Certainly modern translations agree with this interpretation:

John 3:8 NLT
The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't explain how people are born of the Spirit."

So my first response to your request that someone give you a verse where someone received the Spirit and produced another manifestation is that you seem to be guilty of presupposition and have a faulty starting point. You assume that there must always be an outward manifestation when someone receives the Spirit and scripture doesn't seem to agree.

I think the saying of Jesus that "the Kingdom of God cometh not with OBSERVATION" could also apply here, though the new birth was not the immediate context of those words. It could be argued that is the same principle we see in John 3:8.

You guys have to look for an observable sign (tongues), or you can't accept that someone has been born again. I think ya'll are mistaken.

Secondly, I'd again remind you of the two passages I posted recently in this thread from 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 and 1 Corinthians 14:2-5 both of which explicitly say or strongly imply the reality that all believers do not speak in tongues.

Thirdly, the scriptures do say there will be another manifestation when someone receives the Spirit, though its not observable on the outside the moment it happens. The repent sinner who is regenerated by the Spirit becomes a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) and the evidence that the seed of God is in they do not continue in sin. (1 John 3:9). Also all the exhortations of love and the fruits of the Spirit in scripture.

Let me state it this way. We are NEVER told to discern for ourselves whether or not someone truly received the Spirit at the very moment they believed. Instead we are given mountains of scripture telling us how to discern a false believer from a true brother--and not one of these have anything to do with whether they speak in tongues (in fact it could be argued based off 1 Corinthians that the most immature believer speak in tongues). This suggest that the birth of the Spirit is a work of God not always (if ever) discernable to us at the moment it occurs.