For those that left the UPC...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

How do we receive this gift is what I think they were wondering. Not how do we get to heaven.

The preceding verse from the NET bible states, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” Immediately after hearing this they were pricked in their hearts.

Those who were pricked in their hearts may have been wondering how they likewise might receive this wonderful gift of God but I think the conviction stemmed from the realization that they had crucified the Messiah and were wondering what they should do to be saved from such a horrible sin.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The preceding verse from the NET bible states, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” Immediately after hearing this they were pricked in their hearts.

Those who were pricked in their hearts may have been wondering how they likewise might receive this wonderful gift of God but I think the conviction stemmed from the realization that they had crucified the Messiah and were wondering what they should do to be saved from such a horrible sin.

Good point,
And what did Peter say to them. Although the word saved is not the word I would use rather forgiven for such a horrible sin.

Peter said to repent. This is the primary command as many have come to understand the next phrase to me be baptized because of the forgivenes (remitance) of your sins. The next phrase and you shall recive the gift of the holy ghost. Is not a command but a statement. Note he did not follow this up with a statement like "you will speak with tongues", He said you will recieive the promise when you repent.

The gospel is not Acts 2:38 plan of salvation. The gospel is very simply the good news that Jesus came to bring forgiveness for the sins of mankind. IMHO we are not to go preaching our plan of salvation. We are to be preaching the good news of the gift of God made avalable to all mankind. And that by faith beleiving in this, that we can have remission of sins and go into the door or the way to relationship with God.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Good point,
And what did Peter say to them. Although the word saved is not the word I would use rather forgiven for such a horrible sin.

Peter said to repent. This is the primary command as many have come to understand the next phrase to me be baptized because of the forgivenes (remitance) of your sins. The next phrase and you shall recive the gift of the holy ghost. Is not a command but a statement. Note he did not follow this up with a statement like "you will speak with tongues", He said you will recieive the promise when you repent.

The gospel is not Acts 2:38 plan of salvation. The gospel is very simply the good news that Jesus came to bring forgiveness for the sins of mankind. IMHO we are not to go preaching our plan of salvation. We are to be preaching the good news of the gift of God made avalable to all mankind. And that by faith beleiving in this, that we can have remission of sins and go into the door or the way to relationship with God.

Is not Acts 2:38 an elaboration of John 3:3-7!

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Is not Acts 2:38 an elaboration of John 3:3-7!

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Elaboration...perhaps, not. Born of the water...that is a natural birth. Spirit is born through salvation. But to be an actual elaboration to Act 2:38 it would have to be actually talking about tongues, which it isn't. It is however talking about salvation.

It is amazing that MOST Apostolics think that Acts 2:38 is the gospel. What is also amazing is that all those people are wrong too.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Is not Acts 2:38 an elaboration of John 3:3-7!

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Is it why do you stop at verse 7? Jesus goes on to explain what being born again is in the rest of the converation with Nicodemaus.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I don't see Acts 2:28 here do you. This is why I say we pull passages out of context, not rightly dividing the word as Paul exhorts us to do.

[Godsdrummer]

Again I refer to the early 1900's when we get these doctrines. As much as we can this is the best time in history to look at because these times are fresh in the minds of us all. We can only determine what we think was ment in earlier history by asumtion as we only have the writtings of those early christians.

The teaching of this Acts 2:38 doctrine was not revealed all at once as we like to think. Go back to the book after book written of this time period.

First God poured out the power of his spirit upon those that were seaking for deeper relationship with God. This comming with the experiance of speaking with tongues. This old (new to us) experiance swept the country in the next several years. At the first it was not preached as a salvational issue, it was a deeper leval of walking with God. As more and more came to this experiance many continued to go even deeper in study and prayer. Soon understanding of baptism in Jesus name and the oneness of God emerged. Soon on the heals of this came the teaching that these were salvational issues based on conjecture and not proper study of the word.

Just as the wearing of pants on women is based on conjecture and not sound understanding of the dress and culture of the day. But rather taking Deut 22:5 to mean what preachers wanted it to mean in the early 20th century. Never taking into acount what God was meaning in the time of its writting. Speaking in tongues is not a salvational issue if it was centurys of christians would be dammed to hell that never spoke in tongues.

Satan has done more in dividing the kingdom of God through these doctrines and many others that bring separation and division to the kingdom of God than all the sensual modes of dress that come out of fasion designers accross the world. TV, sports, clubs, and many other things this world has to offer. By bringing division into the kingdom of God he has weakend the move of God in the world to the point that we have lost the influance we should have.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

It's important that we do not read too much into these instances either by the mention of speaking with tongues or the non-mention of speaking with tongues. These examples are sufficient in the minds of some to establish the "initial physical evidence" doctrine (in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established) and are not sufficient to cause others to come to that conclusion. Let's show some charity to those who may not agree with us here.

Amen, brother. good words.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Sam

I cited examples from Acts chapters 2, 8, 9, 10, and 19 that showed a specific example of people receiving an experience known as the Holy Ghost Baptism, the Spirit coming or falling upon, receiving the Spirit, and being filled with the Spirit. In Acts 2, 10, and 19 tongues are mentioned. In Acts 9 (Saul/Paul) receiving tongues are not mentioned. In Acts 8 tongues are not mentioned but implied by something that accompanied the HGB --something that was not healing, miracles, exorcisms or great joy-- something that probably was tongues.

It's important that we do not read too much into these instances either by the mention of speaking with tongues or the non-mention of speaking with tongues. These examples are sufficient in the minds of some to establish the "initial physical evidence" doctrine (in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established) and are not sufficient to cause others to come to that conclusion. Let's show some charity to those who may not agree with us here.

Sam, these are wise words. I agree with you 1000%.

[POWERUP]

Originally Posted by seekerman

My opinion is pretty well the same as yours. Thanks for the post.....good post, sam.

My thoughts exactly!!! Great post.

[shag]

To me, the question all this basically hinges on is this: When exactly or at what point exactly did the Spirit become indwelling in the persons in scripture(in Acts), because a person can NOT inherit eternal life without the Spirit indwelling, because we are NOT His, according to this verse. (right?)


Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.


So the question is(1st, before discussing/deciding the necessity of tongues), did folks have the Spirit indwelling them before they recived the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19? It seems to me no, or they would not have recived the Spirit if it was already in them. And Rom. 8:9 reads we have to have His Spirit in us it to be His.
Maybe Im missing or overlooking something tho..?