Why don't some speak in tongues?

[SDG]

Bump.

David Bernard in his book the New Birth in his chapter discussing repentance attributes not being filled with the Spirit w/ the evidence of speaking tongues, or having difficulty in receiving the HG ... to be lacking in repentance and/or faith.

Quote:

It is important that those who pray with seekers at the altar have a correct understanding of repentance. Below are some practical guidelines based on our discussion.

(1) We should emphasize the moving of God's Spirit, not gimmicks or techniques. Special phrases or motions cannot substitute for repentance.

(2) We should attempt to discern where the seeker is spiritually. If he has not fully repented, we should not prematurely force him to express joy and expect the Spirit. Once he has repented, then we can encourage him to praise God and believe for the Spirit.

(3) We can put ourselves in the seeker's position and pray with him. This will show him how to pray and will help us pray with a burden.

(4) If the seeker does not seem to be making progress, there may be several problems, each of which requires a different approach. The problem may be a failure to understand what repentance is, a refusal to surrender everything to God, a lack of desire (hunger, desperation, sense of urgency), a lack of godly sorrow, or a lack of faith.

(5) We must not try to teach him how to speak in tongues. This sign will come as the Spirit gives utterance. Instead of stressing only that he should yield his tongue to God, we should stress that he should surrender his whole mind and life to God. When the seeker yields everything to God, concentrates totally on Him, and exercises faith, he will be able to yield his tongue to God.

(6) Let us avoid distracting practices such as shaking the seeker, pounding him, forcing him to do certain things, giving conflicting advice, or otherwise annoying him. People often repent and receive the Spirit in spite of, not because of, the altar workers.

If the seeker is sincere and ready to repent, he will receive the Spirit in a short time. If he does not, there is something lacking in his repentance or in his faith. In such a case, altar workers need to be spiritually sensitive and knowledgeable so they can help him overcome these difficulties.

Why don't some receive the gift of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of speaking in tongues ... right away ....

We've heard of some who complete either step 1, or steps 1 and 2 .... and for years cannot speak in tongues or struggle to be filled .... Why, is this so? Do you agree w/ Bernard?

Is it more lack of repentance? Lack of faith? Are they not linked?

If one is forgiven at repentance ... and/or after baptism but can't speak in tongues were you really ever forgiven at step one or two?

If we all accept that we are saved by grace through faith but the reason one does not speak in tongues is because a lack of faith ... then did that person ever obey the plan of salvation at least partially ... or exercise salvific faith in the first place?

And tangentially ... do you agree w/ Bernard's altar worker suggestions?

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is beside the point MOW...Your intent is NOT at issue....


"The ONLY purpose of that is to get the other person emotionally riled up and NOT to get to the actual issue...the truth."

My intent was exactly what you accused me of.

[SDG]

When an altar session is equated to true repentance ... this whole thing falls apart, IMO.

[Praxeas]

Because MOW is too lazy to separate the quotes he did his in red Kidding MOW...His responses are in RED though

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I understand what you believe and could take your side, from what I was taught for decades, and promote it quite well. This was actually referencing Miz, sorry.

No problem

Quote:
I do understand that 3 steppers don't normally come out and literally state that unless someone speaks in tongues, they are going to hell.
Well is it a regular practice of One steppers to run around and tell people they are going to burn in hell, just like that? How about JWs? Are three steppers going to hell because they DON'T believe the One step and thus in your theology have really added to the word of God and even added works to their salvation? I don't believe so.

But isn't that the logical conclusion OF 1 Step theology? To a three stepper it might sound like you are saying "three steppers are lost, but I don't believe they are"

Do you regularly tell them they are going to hell even if your theology "might" essentially condemn them when the logical conclusion is followed? If it's the truth, yes.

So you do tell 3 Steppers they are going to hell?

Quote:
However, the logical conclusion of that soteriology, is that a person is NOT saved unless they have spoken in tongues and therefore will not go to heaven because they are none of His and therefore will logically go to hell. That is the logical progression of that particular belief paradigm.
Well This is what I have seen...I have seen a lot of nasty, emotive and pejorative arguments tossed out that essentially pegs 3 steppers of relying on works. Follow the logical conclusion of that. They argue that the three steppers have a false soteriology..so then are three steppers saved? Yes.

How can that be if they have a false salvational view or a false gospel or they are adding works? Do you think ALL 1 Steppers would say yes? See my point is clearly from the arguments I have heard, three steppers are relying not on Jesus but on their own works...

If a 1 Stepper argues salvation comes at Faith alone, at Repentance what is the logical conclusion then? The three steppers teach a false doctrine? Yes.

Yet they are saved?

False teachers? Yes.

Yet they are saved?

Pharisees? Some of them.

Are THEY saved? What makes some three steppers pharisees and others not?

Legalists? Some of them as well.

But WHY are they legalists? What makes them legalists? Is it not in the "faith alone" view that three steppers have a legalistic view of salvation and are adding works via baptism? Does that not make all 3 steppers in the faith alone view, legalists?

What other pejorative terms have we seen? And those terms carry the connotation of condemnation...legalists are not really saved are they? They are if they have a relationship with god.

Isn't that like a three stepper saying a 1 Stepper can be saved "if they obey acts 2:38"? Does or can a legalists really have a relationship with God?

Pharisees are not really saved, are they? Right? Even Pharisees are saved if they have a relationship with God.

But how can they really be pharisees IF they have a genuine relationship with God? IS it by faith or works? If someone is relying on works is it not the faith alone logic that such a person is NOT having a relationship BY faith but rather is trying to please God through their own works?

What bothers me about all of this is that a person can truly repent, get baptized, live a sanctified life and not have spoken in tongues and they're not rapture ready.
Why should that bother you? Because it states that a person's true conversion is of lesser value than completing a formula IMO.

But why should that bother YOU? Do you lose sleep at night thinking about the doctrines of the JWs, three steppers, Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, COC and other groups that essentially mean some of us are not really saved? WHy should it bother us? Now see, that it bothers you though or anyone else...is really beside the point I have been making. Again I have no problem with addressing a doctrine. That is beside the point. Let's do it though using intelligent arguments and not emotive rhetoric. Also, so what if a Mizpeh does not want to come right out and tell you you are going to hell even if her doctrine's logical conclusion might signal that (or not you but someone else)? So what? You said that believe bothers you so why goad them into saying "I think you are going to hell"?

particularly when we very well know that such an overt statement of condemnation will fuel or solicit negative emotive responses? I don't get why we have to get Mizpeh to condemn everyone to hell...particularly if we are already bothered by what she believes?

That's their view. How about you? Maybe what bothers THEM is that you don't get peopel rapture ready by telling them all they need to do is repent and that's it? Im not saying that is true, but my point is it always works both ways. It is therefore offensive then to try to FORCE someone to condemn others to hell verbally when they feel direct condemnation is God's perogative and that ours is simply to make people aware of what the bible says and let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately MOW YOU as an individual are the SOLE responsibility to get yourself right with God..have faith...and love the Lord...

If Baptism does not save but it is still a commandment for those that have faith and the same with the baptism of the Spirit...that individual has the responsibility to follow through on that...but they will never unless they discover baptism in Jesus name and the baptism of the Spirit for themselves or someone tells them.

When you tell a sinner about Jesus do you walk up and just tell them "you are going to hell"? Of course not. But if they ask me a point blank question, I'll tell them the truth about ALL sinning and give them an honest uncloaked answer.

Ok...but do you say it is your opinion or do you tell them what the word says? Do YOU condemn them or do you tell them the word? It's the word that saves right?

Conversely, a person can truly repent, receive the HG speaking in tongues, life a sanctified life, and not have been baptized in Jesus; name and they're still not rapture ready.
Againk this is really all irrelevant to HOW we should be treating each other despite doctrinal differences. A lot of 1 Steppers have Roman Catholics pegged as pagans going to hell....and I mean Trinitarian 1 Steppers. I know Catholics that say I am unsaved and not in the body of Christ....boo hooo...that really means nothing to me. It's not necessary to be offended nor is it necessary to use mockery or pejorative terms in addressing others.

At issue really is NOT "them"...at issue is what the bible says. At issue IS them. It is for THEM that Jesus died. It is ALWAYS about them. They need honest answers to honest questions. From the scriptures.

No no...at issue is their DOCTRINE. You said their doctrine bothers you... At issue is not THEM... making comments about THEM is not going to change Their doctrine. Using emotive and pejorative terms that will usually just might the conversation more on edge is NOT going to help. That is the MAIN point I have been making. It is NOT them, That is ad hominem. It's about THEIR doctrine. You should address THEIR doctrine and address it factually and logically from scriptures not toss in a lot of emotive terms...mocking terms...pejoratives...btw here I am saying "you" generically...the same goes for 3 steppers.

Let's start out though on top without trying to elicit a response from others with questions that include emotive and pejorative and even mocking terms. We all know such terms are going to be seen that way by the very people we are addressing it too.

And you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to disagree with it just like we all do with each other around here.

I never once said nobody has a right do disagree. If you thought that is what I have been saying you really REALLY missed the point.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Let me categorically say that it is NOT my intention to get anyone riled up and it doesn't help your cause to accuse me of doing so. How do you know that is my intent? Did you ask me if that was what I was trying to do? That's the pot calling the kettle black, Prax.

[quote=Praxeas;592993]This is beside the point MOW...Your intent is NOT at issue....HOW we approach others is.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

My intent was exactly what you accused me of.

sigh...Was that a joke or did you contradict yourself? Anyways...if the intent was exactly what you claim it was I think Mizpeh deserves better than that and I don't see her being someone that would normally do the same. That is my point.

You ask her a question but your INTENT was to rile her up emotionally...I can see someone responding in reciprocation...I do it myself and that does not mean that is right either. I don't think we are getting anywhere when we do that and in fact I think THAT is the main reason we have had a lot of people leave...the intentional practice of trying to rile someones emotions up with mocking, pejorative terms...even if the intent was not that...when we do post that way that is the result.

That is the point.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

When an altar session is equated to true repentance ... this whole thing falls apart, IMO.

Alter calls are not usually equated to true repentance. We get this from the methodists though...

[Steve Epley]

I haven't read all the posts but just in case it has NOT been said:

NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN SAVED FROM PENTECOST UNTIL NOW WITHOUT OBEYING ACTS 2:38.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Alter calls are not usually equated to true repentance. We get this from the methodists though...

Good post, Prax. I read the beginning of this thread this morning but didn't have time to respond. There is much more involved in receiving God's spirit. Repentance is a beginning. Good teaching on repentance is very important.

We are supposing, again, that we know the hearts of all men when we speak of the whys or why nots involving the infilling of the Holy Ghost. That's not a good thing.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

David Bernard in his book the New Birth in his chapter discussing repentance attributes not being filled with the Spirit w/ the evidence of speaking tongues, or having diffiiculty in receiving the HG ... to be lacking in repentance and/or faith.

Why don't some receive the gift of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of speaking in tongues ... right away ....

We've heard of some who complete either step 1, or steps 1 and 2 .... and for years cannot speak in tongues or struggle to be filled .... Why, is this so? Do you agree w/ Bernard?

Is it more lack of repentance? Lack of faith? Are they not linked?

If one is forgiven at repentance ... and/or after baptism but can't speak in tongues were you really ever forgiven at step one or two?

If we all accept that we are saved by grace through faith but the reason one does not speak in tongues is because a lack of faith ... then did that person ever obey the plan of salvation at least partially ... or exercise salvific faith in the first place?

And tangentially ... do you agree w/ Bernard's altar worker suggestions?

Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Every single one - absolutely no exceptions whatsoever - that is born of the Spirit is like the wind - you don't know where it is coming from or where it is going, but you hear the sound thereof.

A sound will accompany every single one that is born of the Spirit - in Acts that sound was tongues.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice "the" gift of the Holy Ghost, not "a" gift of the Holy Ghost - the promise of the Father (Joel 2)

How did the jews know that on the gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 10:46 - For - Strong's Concordance - A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles)

The reason why the Jews knew that the Gentiles had rec'd the Holy Ghost was because they heard them speak with tongues just like they did in Acts 2.

Peter explaining after-the-fact - Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Acts 8 is very interesting in this context...

Act 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
Act 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
Act 8:8 And there was great joy in that city.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The way some people believe, they would've told the Samaritans - "look you believe, have great joy, and have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, you must have the Holy Ghost!". They would have just left them thinking that they were saved and had the Holy Ghost and would've had them deceived into thinking the same thing.

But thank God that Philip knew better! He knew they hadn't rec'd the Holy Ghost yet. How did he know? Because he didn't hear the sound that Jesus taught about in John 3:8 and the sound that they had rec'd in the upper room in Acts 2 and the sound that the Gentiles exhibited in Acts 10 that Peter in Acts 11 said the Gentiles rec'd the Holy Ghost just like they, the Jews, had in Acts 2.

Thank God that Philip, Peter, and John realized that although they had rec'd the word of God, believed it, apparently repented and were water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; they hadn't rec'd the Holy Ghost yet and prayed for them until they did.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The rest and the refreshing is the baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by another tongue and can be evidenced also by stammering lips.

Jesus spoke of how refreshing it is...

First note that Peter called the baptism of the Holy Ghost "the gift of God" - Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Jesus spoke about this refreshing gift...

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Never thirst again - how refreshing is that?

What is that refreshing water that is the gift of God? ...

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

That refreshing gift of God is indeed the baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

Incidentally, the NT baptism of the Holy Ghost did NOT come into effect until AFTER Jesus was glorified. No one had rec'd the NT baptism of the Holy Ghost until Acts 2. Hence, no one was NT born of the Spirit until Acts 2. Hence, the thief on the cross was not NT born again not only because he wasn't NT born of the Spirit, but also because...

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

But I think that most of this is teaching to the choir.

[ManOfWord]

[quote=Praxeas;593020]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is beside the point MOW...Your intent is NOT at issue....HOW we approach others is.



sigh...Was that a joke or did you contradict yourself? Anyways...if the intent was exactly what you claim it was I think Mizpeh deserves better than that and I don't see her being someone that would normally do the same. That is my point.

Ha! I could have worded it much better. I was stating that you accused me of the intent of riling someone up. I denied your accusation and still do. I have every right to speak my mind as do you. I speak to ideas, issues and doctrines. I do it through words. RARELY do I ever personally address someone in the terms you are accusing me of. I will call a doctrine, belief, viewpoint as I see it and will accept it when someone does the same thing to mine. We're adults and are able to have adult discussions.

You ask her a question but your INTENT was to rile her up emotionally...I can see someone responding in reciprocation...I do it myself and that does not mean that is right either. I don't think we are getting anywhere when we do that and in fact I think THAT is the main reason we have had a lot of people leave...the intentional practice of trying to rile someones emotions up with mocking, pejorative terms...even if the intent was not that...when we do post that way that is the result.

That is the point.

I disagree with your conclusion.