Acts 2: Then and Now

[Monarchianism]

.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think loud tongues or praise should be done in private. In a church when someone is speaking in tongues so loud everyone else can hear it or praise that it overbears on others is out of order IMO.

God is not deaf and I personally don't want or need to hear someone else speaking in tongues or yelling at the top of their lungs when Im also trying to worship Him

That being said Im fine with everyone or anyone speaking in tongues. Paul's point is love though.

We should be prayerful and mindful of others to be edified

I agree,

In study the other day I realized something that I had not before, maybe because of my preconditioning concerning tongues. We Pentecostals it seems demand that one speak in tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost, and yet that is not the only evidence given on the day of Pentecost and all other times quoted in scripture. Take a look, First when Peter explained to those that were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost he did not even refer to tongues, rather quoted Joel,
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 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:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

And then to the Gentiles:
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 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.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Some were speaking in tongues other were magnifing God, we cannot prove by this all spoke in tongues.

And finally when Johns diciples were converted,

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

The point being, they did not all speak in tongues some prophesied and glorified God.

[KeptByTheWord]

I remember getting into a conversation with my aunt, a UPC pastor's wife, shortly after our family began to question the whole doctrine of the Acts 2:38 experience. This is how she quoted Acts 2: 38 to me: Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized everyone one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues."

Does anyone find that in scripture? She claimed it was there!

But its not!!! How many times have I heard it that way? Too many to count. Anyone else heard the same thing repeated?

[TyronePalmer]

Truth be told, the first account of the Holy Spirit falling on anybody is in Matthew 3:16-17 when the Spirit came from Heaven and alighted upon Jesus.

"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Every teaching by any minister of the gospel should be founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Peter and the rest of the apostles learned what they preached from Jesus and the Holy Spirit empowered them to be witnesses of Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.

I speak for myself when I say that I have included the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking in other languages, because thousands believe they have the Holy Spirit and are saved when they say the 'sinners prayer', or get baptized in water only and are told they are born again and saved but never receive the Holy Spirit.

That was my testimony for eight years until my wife told me about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and I went through a HUGE struggle to overcome all the false teachings I had received about this and I had to admit that I did not have the Holy Spirit in my heart for eight years, but I called myself a Christian! What a wake up call that was! But praise be to God for His mercy and grace who poured out His Spirit upon me after much prayer, repentance, and bible study, and guess what? I spoke in tongues and prophesied!

[Sandy]

I didn't read everything that others wrote about this subject. Because to do so I would have had to read it all.

But here are a couple of issues that I believe I have found to be false that most are taught about that chapter.

First of all, it does seem to be saying that all did speak in tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. My taking that all to mean all that was in that upper room did speak in tongues eventually that did recieve.

But then if you will notice very closely, what it begins to tell you in verse 6 about something being noised abroad to others about what had happened apparently in that upper room. So how long did this noising abroad for others to come running there to find out what was going on? This being when people that was curious about what was going on in Jerusalem began to come there to find out. Kind of like some that hear about revival breaking out in a certain place, their rushing there to take part in what is going on there. Meaning when the rest of what happened there took place, it most likely was not even in the upper room at all by then. But that is what most of us have been taught to believe isn't it? Because it takes time for things to get noised abroad, even when you tell a woman about it, does it not? So no doubt what occurred thereafter could have been out in the street even. My saying there had to have been a break in time between the upper room taking place, compared to what followed after verse 6. But everyone of us has been taught that all of this chapter took place on the day of Pentecost in that upper room. Which I now disagree with totally.

Then, while it says that the crowd thought these were drunk, which of course my agreeing with those that do not see them even what is called being drunk in the Spirit. But they thought they were drunk apparently, not because of it saying they were speaking in tongues. But because of what each of them did hear. Meaning they heard them speak in their native tongues. So were they doing so by speaking in tongues at all to begin with. which perhaps the were, because of having heard this happening before? but it does not say they were speaking in tongues at all then. Meaning to say they were, is adding what we think to the Word isn't it? Or was the Lord simply allowing them to hear in their native tongues instead? Because I have heard of this happening before also. Where an American that only spoke English would be speaking in English, but those around would be hearing that one speaking in their language instead. I mean if God can cause us to speak in unknown tongues to begin with. Doesn't it stand to reason He could also cause us to hear something in that language as well? Even when Peter stood up and preached the message, they no doubt heard him the same way most likely. Because the only indication that anyone was speaking in tongues at that time, was they thought they were drunk because of what they were hearing only. Meaning it never said that anyone was speaking in tongues at that time at all. that is what man tells us happened. But only says they were hearing in their own language after verse 6. If so where does it say they were speaking in tongues after verse 6? Because I cannot find it. My feeling led after hearing about a testimony about another this very incident happened to. Where he was speaking i English, yet the country he was in was hearing him speaking their language perfectly. His interpreter telling him this is what he was hearing, after he asked him why he was not interpreting at all. And certainly, while this may seem to be something strange to our own way of thinking. With God nothing is impossible at all is it? Even for thousands of people to be hearing what was being said in their own language that brought about so many finally being saved.

Something to check out, praying about anyway.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Joelhardy

Good points many don't want to hear these things. It defeats thier long built up doctrines, based on the traditions of man and not the word of God.

I just want to add a couple of points that occoured to me while reading this post. It has been my understanding that the tongues we speak under the anointing are none other than an earthly language, just one we don't speak. Suffice it to say I don't put as much emphisis on tongues any more.

As for the rest of the emotionalism, there is a place for it. But I have come to find a far deeper relationship with God without the shouting, jumping, running the aisles, etc. Yesterday I spent an hour sharing the love of God with another discouraged christian. The week before I spent an hour encouraging a former Catholic that had lost thier way. When asked do I miss the emotionalism? I get more fulfillment when I share with others the wonderful works of God.

IMHO we have lost the whole bottom line. We are wrapped up in proseliting others to our own denomination and traditions we have forgotten we are to be reconciling the world back to God. Its not all about salvation and staying saved, It is about a personal relationship with God right now.

We are wasting good years we could be in a special relationship with God that we can only enjoy in this life.

[preacherman]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

The first scripture verse I was taught in Sunday School as a child was Acts 2:38, and I'm sure it is still the first verse most children of the faith are taught to memorize.

Acts chapter two seems to be the main reference for all things "Holy Ghost" related. When someone asks about tongues or the infilling of the Spirit, we always point them to Acts chapter two - the birth of Pentecostalism. Even Peter, in Acts chapter 11, refered back to the first Holy Ghost experience when defending the Gentiles receiving of the gift. Acts chapter two is the foundation of the Apostolic/Pentecostal faith. And I believe it is also the foundation upon which every other recorded Holy Ghost out-pouring or reference in the Bible stands.

However, everytime I read this passage, or any other similar passage, I always encounter conflicts between what I've been taught is Holy Ghost, and what is recorded in the Word. I'd like to discuss some of these inconsistencies. They may seem small and insignificant, but I'd like to cover them nonetheless, just to be thorough.


1. These are not drunken, as ye suppose - the signs of the out-pouring

I've always been fed that Peter's words meant "These men and women are not drunk in the way you think they are. That somehow what Peter is saying is "These men and women ARE drunk, but not like you think they are. They are drunk on the Spirit!"

This is an error. When the onlookers heard the disciples speaking in tongues, they were amazed, confused (1 Cor. 14:2), doubtful, and some mocked - calling them drunken.

Look at Peter's words:

"...for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day..."

Notice the how the "as ye suppose" is offset by commas. I believe this means, "You suppose these are drunken, but they aren't. It's only the third hour of the day!"

I must disagree with every preacher/evangelist who ever said, "Peter didn't deny they were drunk! He knew they were drunk!" I believe Peter was saying just the opposite.

If I'm right, and this is what Peter was saying, then it leaves a whole lot of explaining for those who embrace our more...modern...signs of the out pouring as "drunkeness," because now they have no firm ground to stand on when trying to explain:

Slain in the Spirit
Slurred Speach
Moaning/Wailing
Sobbing/Screaming and tears
Reeling, running and jumping


I believe I am right, by Peter's next words...Read on in Acts 2


Peter informs them that what is going on (which is, by the way, ONLY speaking in tongues) is the fulfilled prophecy of the out-pouring of God's Spirit. He then lists what the effects of the out-pouring will be:

prophecy
visions
dreams


Why are none of our modern signs recorded in this list? And why are they nowhere to be found in Acts 4, 8, 10, or 19 either when the Holy Ghost was again poured out?

I'm not seeking to rid the church of all emotion. LOL!!!!! Just pondering this.



2. We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Everytime someone recieves the "Holy Ghost" nowadays, they speak in a "heavenly language," just like in Acts 2, right?

Wrong.

In Acts chapter 2 the tongues were not a "heavenly" language. They were earthly languages. We can argue all day about this, but the Word is very clear. What those onlookers heard were the tongues of earth. The substance of those words was heavenly (praise to God) but the words themselves were undeniably earthly.

So, who invented the idea that the intial evidence of recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in a "heavenly" language?



That's all I can think of right now. Maybe more later.


God Bless!

I like this and i agree with most of it,but there is one thing i would like to comment on,and that is the "Heavenly language".
though the Bible does not say Heavenly language it does talk about a language that only GOD can understand, And that to me would have to be a "Heavenly language".

1 Cor.14-2:For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (language) speaketh not unto men, but unto GOD: for no man understandeth him;howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

So by this verse we can see that there is a unknown language that only GOD can understand,and since GOD is a Spiritual being and lives in the heavenly realm, then the Heavenly language must be the unknown language that Paul is spoke about here in 1 Cor. 14th chapter.
But the rest of post i agree with,just thought i would add this.

[NorCal]

Noobs? Really. He used Noobs?
Nice disrespect to those that do not have the Holy Ghost.

II. Defining 'Noob'
Contrary to the belief of many, a noob/n00b and a newbie/newb are not the same thing. Newbs are those who are new to some task* and are very beginner at it, possibly a little overconfident about it, but they are willing to learn and fix their errors to move out of that stage. n00bs, on the other hand, know little and have no will to learn any more. They expect people to do the work for them and then expect to get praised about it, and make up a unique species of their own.

Sinners I would consider newb. You I would consider n00b.

[Sandy]

thanks for sharing that about the meaning of noob. I was wondering what it was.

As for the following our ever getting past needing to possibly fix or possibly adjust somewhat, some of the things we do believe entirely, does that ever end as long as we are in these bodies here? It definitely hasn't ended for me yet. So as I see it, nobody should want to be a noob. but newb, absolutely.