25 Year Anniversary

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

PO and Sherri - I followed your conversation with interest. I grew up believing as PO does but that was because I grew up in that mindset, and sincerely believed that all who did not speak in tongues would be lost forever.

Some years ago, there were many things about the "truth" that began to bother me, mostly because I could not find it specifically written in scripture that they were heaven/hell issues, namely tithing, uncut hair on women.

I began to dig and search the scriptures for myself, and found that I now find myself in Sherri's "camp".

I have seen so much wickedness take place from people who were "tongue-talkers" and we were supposed to swallow everything they said and did simply because they spoke in tongues and danced a jig, while living a horrific lifestyle of ungodliness.

And I have seen people who have never spoken in tongues in their life, but exemplify genuine fruit of the spirit in all they do.

So I have come to the understanding that the bottom line is not "speaking in tongues" but fruit of the spirit. Whether you speak in tongues, or not... the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit and our works is what we will judged on, not whether we mumbled a bunch of jumbo and call it salvational.

I've seen and heard far too many "tongue-talkers" confident in their salvation because they can do a mumble jumble, and yet their lifestyle full of pervertedness, all kinds of malice and evil works... to believe that tongue-talking alone is salvational.

We must know the same people!

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Saying that only the devout could understand the languages being spoken is NOT what scripture says at all... it says "all" "they were ALL amazed and marvelled"

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

And of course the best way to demonstrate that tongues are not salvational is the one scripture that the OP stands on, which is Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues."

Tongue-in-cheek of course, because the passage here just DOES NOT say that although I have heard many OP interject that into this scripture.

What must we do? Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Nowhere is "tongues" mentioned there. Sorry, not there!

Did they speak with tongues? Yes, they did, but we know they spoke with tongues that could be understood. Yet Paul said the gift of tongues is an "unknown tongue" and not one that can be understood, hence the need for an interpreter in the church setting.

So tying Acts 2:38 in with having to speak with tongues as salvational, is quite simply not supported by scripture, and borders on false teaching to tell people they must have the gift of tongues to be saved.

Do I speak in tongues? Yes, I do. It is a beautiful gift from the Lord, and I treasure the times I have had in the spirit, communing with the Lord. But nowhere in scripture am I commanded to speak in tongues to be saved... it is an after-product, or a by-product of being a child of God, and is a gift that God gives to us if we desire it, as are any of the other gifts in the church (1 Cor. 12:29-31) to be highly desired and sought after, but the gift of CHARITY is the greatest.

Charity should be the gift that we teach and preach that we must have and need, above all others.

Can you mention one time in the Bible, where it explicitly states they received the Holy Ghost but did not speak in tongues?

[Esaias]

I'd like to know what church or what teacher ever said or taught "tongue-talking ALONE is salvational". Whatever that's even supposed to mean.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'd like to know what church or what teacher ever said or taught "tongue-talking ALONE is salvational". Whatever that's even supposed to mean.

I've certainly never heard that, and I'm born and raised in the UPC. I can't recall ever hearing a preacher teach or preach that you must speak in tongues, rather that when you receive, you *will* speak in tongues. It's the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do know that there are some who try and teach people how to speak in tongues (see my tie, see my tie my bowtie?), and this is obviously wrong. Speaking in tongues is not the goal, it's simply what will happen when one receives the Holy Ghost. It's the evidence of the goal.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I really agree wholeheartedly with you, that our experience should not trump the Word of God.

And it was not my experience that changed me, but study of the Word. One thing that I have never seen, is what happened on the Day of Pentecost - on the day of Pentecost, everyone spoke in actual languages that people from all over the world could understand.

I have never in my life heard anyone speak in an actual understandable language when first receiving the gift of tongues. Yet, I have heard the unknown language that is the unknown tongue gift that comes as a gift from God. The passage below is where Paul acknowledges that the gift of tongues is an unknown tongue... so how can that be the same thing that happened at Pentecost where everyone understood the language being spoken?

This is a conundrum no one wants to admit to in OP circles.

This is a conundrum no one wants to admit to in OP circles.

Not sure what 'OP circles' you've been swimming in, but apparently the pool needed cleaning.

so how can that be the same thing that happened at Pentecost where everyone understood the language being spoken?

It seems you have misunderstood what actually happened on Pentecost.

Let's begin with the prophecies of Joel:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
(Joel 2:28-32 KJV)

As quoted from the Greek LXX used by Peter:
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: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:17-21 KJV)


What was going to happen? The key part is "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."

There are 7 categories of recipients of the Spirit that are mentioned: all flesh, your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, the (my) servants, and the (my) handmaids. The Spirit would be poured out upon 'all flesh', meaning 'everyone'. The following six categories are subdvisions of the 'all flesh'. That means sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaidens. Now, all the 'sons' would be all the males, of any age. And all the 'daughters' would be all the females, of any age. Old men and young men are two particular categories of the males, but pretty much covers all the males. Servants are all the males who serve God, and handmaidens are all the females who serve God. Notice, the "young me"n and the "old men" are included in the categories of "sons" and "servants". The "sons" comprise all the males, as does the "servants". They are both the same group - the males. The "daughters" and the "handmaids" likewise are the same group, since both groups are synomyous with 'all the females'.

Each of these categories were to experience something as a result of receiving the Spirit: the sons and daughters were to 'prophesy', the young men were to 'see visions', the old men were to 'dream dreams', and the servants and the handmaids were to 'prophesy'. So we see that all the males ("sons" and "servants") were to "prophesy", and all the females ("daughters" and "handmaids") likewise were to "prophesy". (The old men and the young men are included in the groups of servants and sons.) So there was to be a universal outpouring of the Spirit, and every possible category of person who would receive the Spirit would experience the same thing: they would 'prophesy'. Thus, according to Joel, there was to be a universal 'evidence' or 'sign' of the Spirit being received: each person who received the Spirit was to 'prophesy'.

What does 'prophesy' mean? Why, it means to 'speak the words that God gives you to speak.' It generally means 'ecstatic utterance', it most definitely means speaking forth whatever the Spirit of God leads you to speak. So, the initial evidence, if you will, according to Joel was that people - ALL people - who receive the Spirit would 'prophesy', or speak whatever God gave them to speak.

Now, what actually happened when this came to pass?

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4 KJV)

There was a sound like a strong wind, and there were visions of cloven tongues of fire coming down and sitting upon the disciples, but these things happened BEFORE anyone received the Spirit. When they were 'all filled with the Holy Ghost', they 'began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'. Each person received the Spirit, and each person began to speak in tongues.

But wait. Joel said they would 'prophesy', yet we see them 'speaking with tongues'. How do we resolve this dilemma, this discrepancy? Notice what Peter said: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.' This is that.

What is what? This means the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. That means the outpouring of God's Spirit upon all his male and female servants and them prophesying. The outpouring of the Spirit is fulfilled in the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost. And the 'prophesying' is fulfilled in the 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'.

This means that the universal sign clearly stated by Joel is fulfilled by 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance'. This means that there is a prophesied, old testament expectation of a universal sign or evidence of receiving the Spirit, and the new testament clearly and unambiguously identifies that evidence as 'speaking with tongues.' In other words, the 'initial evidence doctrine' is found in both the old testament and the new testament.

Now, what exactly was going on in that upper room?

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:5-6 KJV)

The multitude that gathered showed up after the tongue speaking had commenced. So we can rule out that specious and silly notion that the disciples were speaking in tongues in order to preach to foreignors. But notice carefully what is said: "...because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Read that again: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language. I'll repeat that for emphasis: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language

The common idea is that some disciples were speaking one language, some another, and so forth. But that is not what the text says. It says that each person in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. Let me repeat that for emphasis: EACH PERSON in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So the guy from Libya heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in Libyan. But the guy from Rome heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Latin. And the guy from Greece heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Greek. And so forth.

Think on that for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Try to imagine Peter speaking Latin, Greek, Libyan, Phrygian, and however many other languages were represented there - ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And imagine each of the other disciples there doing the exact same thing.

IMPOSSIBLE you say? Yes, it is biologically impossible for a person to simultaneously speak multiple languages AT THE SAME TIME. When a word comes out of your mouth, it will be in one or another language, but not both, or three, or ten.

The disciples were speaking in tongues before anyone showed up to ooh and ahh. So there they are, speaking in tongues. The whole lot of them, all at the same time. A crowd showed up to see what was going on, and lo and behold EACH PERSON in the crowd hears ALL THE DISCIPLES speaking in his own native language. And the crowd is 'confounded'. Indeed, so would you be 'confounded' in such a situation.

IF one disciple was speaking one language, and another disciple speaking another language, and so forth, would you be confounded? No, you might be amused but not confounded. Confounded means 'utterly clueless as to how something can be happening'. Stunned. Blown away. Astonished. Astonied (as the KJV puts it).

BUT WAIT, there's more. Some folks showed up and were NOT confounded at all. They knew exactly what was going on. 'These guys are DRUNK.' They are mad, they are on crack.

And isn't that what Paul said would happen if the UNBELIEVING came in to the midst of a meeting where everyone is 'speaking with tongues'?

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
(1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV)

So how did all those 'devout men' hear every single disciple speaking HIS OWN language, when these disciples were simply 'speaking in tongues'? Apparently God caused them to hear in their own language. Is this too much? Well, was it too much for a sound like a rushing mighty wind, or cloven tongues of fire? Was it too much for the three lepers whose footsteps God amplified into the sound of an approaching army that none but the Syrians could hear in 2 Kings chapter 7?

So then, not only is speaking with tongues the Biblically documented universal, initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, it is also not about speaking in languages known to the hearers.

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

No man understandeth him... unless God gives a supernatural understanding of what is being said... unless God causes you to hear it in a way that makes sense to you...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I believe a person leaves the Kingdom of Satan and enters the Kingdom of the Lord at repentance and confession. The word "repentance" just means a change of mind or change of direction. They were walking one way and now they are walking the other. At that point, I believe that Jesus (spirit of the Lord) lives in him/her - I have seen radical life change at this stage that could only come about by the Spirit of the Lord.

This is a common error among those who do not stop to think that the Spirit of God can lead a person without that person 'having' the Spirit dwelling in them. NOBODY repents without it being the product of the Holy Spirit. Yet, who besides the Calvinists would maintain that a person receives the Spirit BEFORE repentance? Yet, that is the logical conclusion to what is being said here: the 'radical change' can only come about by the Spirit of the Lord, therefore the Spirit is living 'inside' the person. But since the radical change is the RESULT of the Spirit, the Spirit must have entered the person BEFORE the radical change came about - thus, regeneration comes BEFORE repentance in this scheme of doctrine. Yet, most who hold this scheme of doctrine will NOT admit that repentance is the RESULT of being born again, because that lands them squarely in five-point TULIP territory.

There is a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit that is evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Not one verse in the entire Bible says or even suggests there is a distinction between 'receiving the Spirit' and the 'baptism of the Spirit'.

If you think that a true conversion can happen without the Spirit of the Lord living in them, that's where we would disagree.

So then, conversion takes place AFTER God takes up residence in a person. Which means a person does not exercise faith, and does not repent, until AFTER they have been born again. You are tip-toeing through the TULIPs but probably aren't even aware of it.

What do you think happens to a person when they repent?
I do believe that after repentance, a truly converted person will obey and follow in baptism, but I don't think the baptism is what saves them.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV)

One should always be concerned when, in their attempt to explain their beliefs, they make statements that are the exact opposite and contradictory to the statements made by the apostles.

It's just a part of the process they need to follow. I think they will also go on to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but again I think they were saved when they left Satan's kingdom.

Why do they 'need' to follow any process if it is not 'salvational'? What's the 'need'? And what is the result of NOT following the 'process'?

[Sister Alvear]

I probably am what you all call a three stepper...lol...however Jesus did NOT say all would know you are my disciples if you talk in tongues....HE said..New International Version
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

New Living Translation
Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples."

English Standard Version
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Berean Study Bible
By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another."

Berean Literal Bible
By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love among one another."

New American Standard Bible
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

King James Bible
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.""

International Standard Version
This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

NET Bible
Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples--if you have love for one another."

New Heart English Bible
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Every person will know by this that you are my disciples, if you shall have love one to the other.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Everyone will know that you are my disciples because of your love for each other."

New American Standard 1977
“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
By this shall everyone know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

King James 2000 Bible
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.

American King James Version
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.

American Standard Version
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Douay-Rheims Bible
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

Darby Bible Translation
By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves.

English Revised Version
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Webster's Bible Translation
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Weymouth New Testament
It is by this that every one will know that you are my disciples--if you love one another."

World English Bible
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Young's Literal Translation
in this shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye may have love one to another.'

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is a common error among those who do not stop to think that the Spirit of God can lead a person without that person 'having' the Spirit dwelling in them. NOBODY repents without it being the product of the Holy Spirit. Yet, who besides the Calvinists would maintain that a person receives the Spirit BEFORE repentance? Yet, that is the logical conclusion to what is being said here: the 'radical change' can only come about by the Spirit of the Lord, therefore the Spirit is living 'inside' the person. But since the radical change is the RESULT of the Spirit, the Spirit must have entered the person BEFORE the radical change came about - thus, regeneration comes BEFORE repentance in this scheme of doctrine. Yet, most who hold this scheme of doctrine will NOT admit that repentance is the RESULT of being born again, because that lands them squarely in five-point TULIP territory.



Not one verse in the entire Bible says or even suggests there is a distinction between 'receiving the Spirit' and the 'baptism of the Spirit'.




So then, conversion takes place AFTER God takes up residence in a person. Which means a person does not exercise faith, and does not repent, until AFTER they have been born again. You are tip-toeing through the TULIPs but probably aren't even aware of it.



Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV)

One should always be concerned when, in their attempt to explain their beliefs, they make statements that are the exact opposite and contradictory to the statements made by the apostles.



Why do they 'need' to follow any process if it is not 'salvational'? What's the 'need'? And what is the result of NOT following the 'process'?

They need to follow for the power and authority that comes through Jesus' name baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by tongues.

No matter what you say, you can never convince me that I was not saved before I spoke in tongues. There was a seven year gap between when I was baptized in water, and when I finally spoke in tongues. I was made to feel like an outsider in the church, told I had sin in my life, etc. etc. etc. I know in my heart that I had a true relationship with the Lord, and was following Him to the best of my abilities. Just because I had not spoken in tongues at that point didn't mean I wasn't one of His.

[KeptByTheWord]

Bro. E... I appreciate the response and time you took to share.

Some points I want to address:
1. I don't know what OP circles you have been "swimming" in either, but the ones I have been around most certainly make the tongues experience salvational. They believe tongues are tied in with the Holy Ghost, and if you don't speak in tongues, you have not been saved. My point is that nowhere is that principle held up specifically in any of Paul's writings. John's disciples were asked "have you received the HG since you believed" indicating that one could indeed believe, and have not yet received.

2. I like your explanation of how all the people in Jerusalem could understand what was being said by those speaking in other tongues. That does make sense, and I believe the event was entirely supernatural. But let me ask you this... have you ever understood what someone was saying when they were speaking in tongues? If so, please share. In my experience that phenomenon has not been repeated since, it was unique and special to the initial outpouring of the HG. It was not ever repeated and recorded again in the book of Acts. We know that tongues can be *interpreted* by other believers, but for someone to walk in off the street and understand what someone is saying as they speak in tongues, we do not have record of that happening again in the book of Acts.

3. OP would have the salvational tongues tied up in a knot if it were just for the book of Acts. Indeed it is true that every time someone received the HG, they spoke in another language. I don't think any of us here are debating that tongues *can* be an initial sign of receiving. The issue is "are tongues salvational". The problem comes into focus with Paul's writings to the Corinthians, where a monkey wrench is thrown into the mix, and now we have to somehow reconcile the Acts experience with what Paul is teaching in 1 Cor. 12 & 14. Let me ask you these questions then:
1. Why was there a need for an interpreter in 1 Cor. 14. Obviously on the Day of Pentecost (DOP) there was no need for interpretation?
2. Why does Paul call it unknown tongues? If what happened on the DOP is how it is supposed to be for every believer who receives, then why do we need an interpreter? Why does God not continue to supernaturally give understanding, without the need for an interpreter for those who do not have the HG, to help them believe?
3. What then is the "gift of tongues", which is also lumped into the same category as apostles, teachers, healers, interpreters, workers of miracles in 1 Cor. 12:30?
4. And why is the gift of tongues, apostleship, teachers, healers, interpreters and workers of miracles, all to be coveted, but there is a MORE EXCELLENT WAY which is charity? And why does Jesus words "and ye shall know them by their love one to another" work perfectly in this context?

My point is... if all we had was the book of Acts... OP *might* stand on one leg and holler that tongues have to be heard in order to be salvational. However, now we have the book of Corinthians where Paul is teaching on the tongue experience, and they need to agree.

And in order for the twain to meet.. it becomes quite clear that tongues *can* be an initial sign and evidence of the HG experience, but that speaking in unknown tongue, healing, prophesy, apostleship, teaching etc. are NOT as beneficial to the church as charity.

And that is where the conundrum lies.

Charity is greater than all of these things. Jesus said so, and Paul says so.

That is why you can talk in tongues like a Chinese laundryman... but if you have not charity, it is as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

This is why tongues cannot be salvational... if they are, then we must all be apostles, teachers, healers, miracle workers, and interpreters too.