Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[El Predicador]

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!

Trying to stay on topic would make you a novel forum poster.

LOL

Hopefully the original premise, that the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is basically useless for teaching theology has been debunked.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Lol, I won't discuss that.

My question is a sidebar, I won't hijack the thread.

I think you should discuss it with me. Surely you've discussed this question with others when you were a pastor. It's a tangent but it really is what Dan is getting at in his round about fashion.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think you should discuss it with me. Surely you've discussed this question with others when you were a pastor. It's a tangent but it really is what Dan is getting at in his round about fashion.

I've been taught that there are three types of tongues:

1.) When you are initially filled with the Holy Ghost

2.) When you are praying in the spirit, or as some call it your "prayer language"

3.) The gift of tongues as in prophecy

But, I see no such scripture to support such a theory. Do you?

And, let's not discuss context, since as Apostolics we pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when the BIble's silent".

What are your thoughts?

[mizpeh]

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!

It's not an assumption.

If you believe those who speak in tongues or those who prophecy when they receive the Spirit are receiving the GIFT of tongues and/or prophecy then my question is legit. Why did God take the gift of tongues away from me?

On the other hand if you believe that everyone speaks in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit and that this experience is truly different than the gift of tongues spoken of in Corinthians then it would explain why Paul asks the rhetorical question, do all speak in tongues?, in the context of the gifts of the Spirit and why I no longer speak in tongues.

Why would you distinguish the gift of tongues being used to speak a message to the church and the gift of tongues being used to edify in prayer? Paul doesn't make that distinction in Corinthians....it is the same gift used in two different settings. Just as there are differences of administration of the gift of healing.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Sam

So, for the record, the only time in the Bible that an Apostle is asked
what must I do to be saved
is answered by an Apostle
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
.

You need to read some more.

Acts 11:12 And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


Let's see now if we have it right?

The Angel tells Cornelius to call for Peter. Cornelius tells Peter and the 6 men what the angel said to him. Peter tells those at Jerusalem what the angle said. Words to be saved by.

Cornelius had a repented heart, heard the word, was filled with the Holy Ghost and baptized in Jesus name.
Oh btw the six men heard them speak in tongues when the HG came on them. The only way to be saved.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It's not an assumption.

If you believe those who speak in tongues or those who prophecy when they receive the Spirit are receiving the GIFT of tongues and/or prophecy then my question is legit. Why did God take the gift of tongues away from me?

On the other hand if you believe that everyone speaks in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit and that this experience is truly different than the gift of tongues spoken of in Corinthians then it would explain why Paul asks the rhetorical question, do all speak in tongues?, in the context of the gifts of the Spirit and why I no longer speak in tongues.

Why would you distinguish the gift of tongues being used to speak a message to the church and the gift of tongues being used to edify in prayer? Paul doesn't make that distinction in Corinthians....it is the same gift used in two different settings. Just as there are differences of administration of the gift of healing.

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.

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?

[rgcraig]

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.

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?

I have wondered this so many times.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I've been taught that there are three types of tongues:

1.) When you are initially filled with the Holy Ghost

2.) When you are praying in the spirit, or as some call it your "prayer language"

3.) The gift of tongues as in prophecy

But, I see no such scripture to support such a theory. Do you?

No.

Did you read this response from El Pretender...I mean El Predicador?

While I would not use personal experience as definite proof of a doctrine I DO agree with Sister Mizpeh as far as the answer of CONTEXT
The incidents chronicled in Acts were response to hearing and acting on the gospel.

Epistles were written to saints from their pastor, in Corinthians to instruct on gifts on the spirit and how they are to be used to edify the church.

And, let's not discuss context, since as Apostolics we pride ourselves on "speaking when the Bible speaks, and being silent when the BIble's silent".

What are your thoughts?

We have to speak from context. That's a basic reading skill. Or are you being sarcastic and saying Apostolics don't have basic reading skills or follow common sense when it applies to the word of God?

In my last post to you, I spelled out what I think about tongues. It is the initial evidence for all believers as witnessed in Acts and in particular the benchmark that was set by God in Acts 2:1-4. And tongues is also a gift of the Spirit to be used in private prayer or public gatherings of believers. I can say that the gift of tongues and the evidence of tongues are two different things because of the context in which they are presented.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No.

Did you read this response from El Pretender...I mean El Predicador?



We have to speak from context. That's a basic reading skill. Or are you being sarcastic and saying Apostolics don't have basic reading skills or follow common sense when it applies to the word of God?

In my last post to you, I spelled out what I think about tongues. It is the initial evidence for all believers as witnessed in Acts and in particular the benchmark that was set by God in Acts 2:1-4. And tongues is also a gift of the Spirit to be used in private prayer or public gatherings of believers. I can say that the gift of tongues and the evidence of tongues are two different things because of the context in which they are presented.

So is it possible that at times when people received the Holy GHost they DID speak with tongues, and at other times they didn't, since the scriptures are set in different contexts?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Light

You need to read some more.

Acts 11:12 And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


Let's see now if we have it right?

The Angel tells Cornelius to call for Peter. Cornelius tells Peter and the 6 men what the angel said to him. Peter tells those at Jerusalem what the angle said. Words to be saved by.

Cornelius had a repented heart, heard the word, was filled with the Holy Ghost and baptized in Jesus name.
Oh btw the six men heard them speak in tongues when the HG came on them. The only way to be saved.

Out of the park and over the wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!